IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10981 of 2009(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S. SAFEELA BEEVI, L.P.S.A., MVLPS, MANTHARA, EDAVA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM DIST. BY ADV. MR.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VARKALA. 4. THE MANAGER, MVLPS, MANTHARA, EDAVA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.10981/2009-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as L.P.S.A in MVLPS, Manthra, Edava, which is an aided school. She is having regular approved service with effect from 01/06/1998. She had applied for joining M.Ed Degree course conducted by the M.G. University during the year 2006. After getting admission, she joined there. Before this, she had applied for leave for study purpose, specifically half pay leave for 120 days from 16/01/2006 to 15/05/2006 and leave without allowance for (333 days) from 16/05/2006 to 14/12/2006 and, accordingly, she proceeded on leave. But it appears that the Manager did not recommend sanctioning of the leave and the leave application was forwarded to the second respondent without the recommendation of the Manager. It is averred in the writ petition that the Assistant Educational Officer, after enquiry referred the matter by proceedings dated 16/11/2006, to the Deputy Director recommending further forwarding of the same to the Government for a proper decision. W.P.(C). No.10981/2009 -:2:- After completing the course, the petitioner sought to rejoin duty but that was not initially allowed by the Headmistress. She had to approach the A.E.O in the matter and, accordingly, the A.E.O directed the Manager to permit the petitioner to join duty as per Ext.P5 order. Since that was not implemented, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.34427/2006, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. The Government passed orders as per Ext.P7 directing the Manager to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty. It was also observed in it that for availing leave without permission, the Manager can consider initiation of disciplinary action. Subsequently, the petitioner rejoined duty on 19/09/2007. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Government sanctioning leave. Presently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non sanctioning of the leave from 15/12/2006 to 18/09/2007. Again, the petitioner has moved the Government for getting her services regularised by Ext.P9. Later on the Manager by Ext.P10 imposed punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect against which the petitioner filed appeal before the A.E.O. The same is pending. Exts.P11 and P11(a) are the copy of the appeal and the postal AD. The petitioner has got a further grievance of non sanctioning of increments, higher grade etc. which is highlighted in Ext.P14 representation before the Government. W.P.(C). No.10981/2009 -:3:- 2. All that the petitioner seeks is for a direction to the Government to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P14 after hearing the petitioner, the A.E.O and the Manager. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In the light of the fact that Exts.P9 and P14 are pending before the Government, there will be a direction to the authorities concerned to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P14 on its merits after hearing the petitioner, the A.E.O and the Manager within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms