IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1183 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34664/2009 Dated 02/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ T.ALI, S/O.T.ABDULLA (LATE), COACH IN BASKETBALL (ON LEAVE), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.SAIDALAVI,S/O.T.ABDULLA (LATE), AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'BLESSINGS', 22ND MILES MANJERI, PIN-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 &2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1183 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant was in the service of the University as a Basket Ball Coach. He was granted leave for 10 years which expired on 15.8.2009. Appellant's case is that he was not aware of any Syndicate decision taken in 2007 not to extend the leave generally for those who have gone on long leave. As of now, appellant's application for extension of leave is turned down by the University vide Ext.P8 order. The irregularity, if any, on the part of the appellant is that he has not joined duty after expiry of the leave. However, it is seen that he is only asked to report for duty. Counsel for the appellant submitted that if leave cannot be extended, certainly he is willing to rejoin duty because he wants to apply for VRS after rejoining duty. We do not want to consider appellant's eligibility for VRS or any other benefit because that is not the issue decided by the learned Single Judge against whose judgment this appeal is filed. All what is considered is appellant's 2 claim for extension of leave, which was turned down by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same. It is for the appellant to rejoin duty and apply for eligible benefit including VRS, if he is entitled. Writ Appeal is closed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms