Allowed

G.Sunilkumar v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014WP(C)/5059/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner's leave without allowance ended on 3.6.2010, de hors the orders in Exts.P5 and P6. The orders extending the leave and canceling the unavailed portion were quashed, directing the State to sanction pay from that date.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P5 and P6 orders quashed; petitioner's leave without allowance ended on 3.6.2010; respondents to sanction pay from that date.

G.Sunilkumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 5059 of 2011 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.SUNILKUMAR, LPSA, NSS UP SCHOOL, CHUNAKKARA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA – 690 101

¶13

*4. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM.690 302

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, NSS UP SCHOOL, CHUNAKARA – 690 534.

¶15

6. SANDHYA.S., THUNDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNAKARA EAST, CHUNAKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA– 690 101

¶16

*ADDL. R4 IS CORRECTED AS THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA

¶17

AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2011 IN I.A. 3967/11.

¶18

R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 5059 of 2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:-

¶23

P1 :COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2784/2008/G.EDN. DATED 19.06.2008. P2 :COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2009 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P3 :COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST DATED 21.5.2010 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P4 :COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.1.2011 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5 :COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2010 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶27

P6 :COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶29

SKV

¶30

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶32

W.P(C) No.5059 of 2011

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Aggrieved by the portion of Exts.P5 and P6 orders by which it was directed that till the date of petitioner's rejoining the leave without allowance shall continue and the remaining unavailed portion was sought to be cancelled, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶36

As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was granted leave without allowance for a period of five years for taking up employment abroad. The petitioner alleges that due to global recession he was not successful in getting a job of his choice and consequently he reported for duty on 20.10.2009 by Ext.P2. The 5^th respondent Manager did not permit him to rejoin the duty though the Government circular states that within three months of the reporting for rejoining the appointing authority shall allow the employee to resume the duty.

¶37

WP(C).5059/11

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

The petitioner alleges that being an educational institution with summer vacation intervening, even a provisional employee is entitled to continue till closing of the school for the academic year and, at any rate, the petitioner is entitled to rejoin duty with effect from 3.6.2010. The petitioner further alleges that without permitting him or without sending the proposal for cancellation of the unavailed portion of leave without allowance, the 5^th respondent has permitted the 6^th respondent to continue in the school pushing the petitioner to redress his grievance and finally by Ext.P6 order, the 1^st respondent directed that the petitioner be permitted to join and consequently the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order directing the headmistress to permit the petitioner to resume duty. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶40

All the contesting respondents entered appearance.

¶41

Arguments have been heard.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶43

that it was not due to the fault of the petitioner that he was

¶44

WP(C).5059/11

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

not permitted to rejoin duty, but it was purely on account of the recalcitrant attitude of the 5^th respondent so as to favour 6^th respondent that the petitioner was not permitted.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 refuted these allegations at the time of argument though no specific counter has been filed by them. Evidently, when the 5^th respondent has expressed his inability to permit the petitioner to rejoin the duty, the petitioner had to approach respondents 1 to 4 and ultimately Ext.P5 order was passed.

¶48

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Government Circular No.15/90/Fin. dated 20.3.1990 leave without allowance for taking up employment and the cancellation that of have been dealt and it is ordered that the employees on leave without allowance for taking employment abroad and who wish to rejoin duty after cancelling the unavailed portion of leave should apply for the same to the authority competent to issue posting orders to the employees at least three months in advance and that the said authority should issue necessary posting orders

¶49

WP(C).5059/11

¶50

-:4:-

¶51

to the employees at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such request.

¶52

Here the petitioner has reported for duty on 20.10.2009 and the 5^th respondent who is the appointing authority should have appointed him w.e.f 20.1.2010; so submitted the learned counsel for the petitioner. But that has not been done by the 5^th respondent and he had not appointed the petitioner even on the re-opening of the school.

¶53

The Government circular referred to above further provides that the period of interregnum between the date of request/reporting and the actual date of rejoining duty shall be treated as part of extension of leave without allowance, Evidently, Ext.P6 order was issued in a routine manner treating the period of the petitioner's leave without allowance till 10.2.2011. This was impermissible and, at any rate, his leave without allowance should have ended by 3.6.2010 i.e., the date of re-opening of the school after mid summer vacation. To that extent, Exts.P5 and P6 are to be quashed.

¶54

WP(C).5059/11

¶55

-:5:-

¶56

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner's leave without allowance ended on 3.6.2010 de hors Exts.P5 and P6. Needless to say that the respondents shall sanction the pay and allowance due to the petitioner with effect from the aforesaid date. Formal orders to that effect shall be issued within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶58

krj

¶59

/True Copy/

¶60

P.A to Judge

G.Sunilkumar v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sunilkumar v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakthivel Vs the Canara Bank and Others

P.Malik Mohammed Vs the Secretary, Rta, Kollam.

Sainaba Vs the Sub-Registrar

Ajikumar.T. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kalvakulam Road Residents Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala

P.D.Chacku Vs R.T.A. and Others