Dismissed

Dr. Aruvi T.P. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Kerala HC12 Mar 2019OP(KAT)/101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala Bench dismissed the writ petition regarding salary increments claimed during a study leave. The court held that the petitioner, having less than five years of service and still on probation, was ineligible under the Kerala Service Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal's rejection of the claim for increments and pay re-fixation was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed; no increments or pay re-fixation was granted.

Dr. Aruvi T.P. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

TUESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 101 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1993/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL BENCH ERNAKULAM OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶10

DR. ARUVI T.P., W/O.SHAMMI RAJ,SARASMRITHI, OPP: SKYLINE FLATS, N.F.GATE,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA SRI.A.ABDUL NABEEL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶17

THIS OP(KAT)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT

¶18

ON 12.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT)No.101/2019

-: 2 :-

Judgment

Chitambaresh, J.

1.The Tribunal has noticed that the petitioner had a continuous service of only 26 days at the time of availing leave without allowances for study purpose under Appendix XIIB Part I of Kerala Service Rules. The petitioner had not completed her probation at the time of availing leave and she was eligible for entering the service as a new entrant on completion of the course. It is trite law that a fresh entrant into service does not carry any benefits of his prior service which cannot therefore be reckoned for granting increments as sought by the petitioner.

¶24

2.Leave without allowances as per Rule 91A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules can be granted only to those officers who have completed five years of service while entering on leave which is not the case on hand. The benefit of Annexure A5 order is admissible only to those doctors who availed leave without allowances for a specific category of employees for a particular period. The petitioner does not fall in that category and there is nothing to show that Ext.P4 judgment in W.A.No.1978/2006 dealt

¶25

OP(KAT)No.101/2019

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

with a case of leave without allowances before completing probation.

¶28

3.The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner to sanction increments for the period of leave availed of for study purposes and to have the pay refixed which decision does not merit interference at our hands.

¶29

The original petition is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

Sd/-

A.M. BABU, JUDGE

Sha/110319

OP(KAT)No.101/2019

-: 4 :-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.1993 OF 2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1993/2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2018 IN O.A.(EKM)NO 1993/2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1978 OF 2006 DATED 30/09/2018.

Dr. Aruvi T.P. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Aruvi T.P. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala, Vs v.Amuda

Dr.Abraham Kuruvilla Vs Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology

Krishnappa.C.B Vs the Commissioner

M.Sivankutty Vs Union of India

Prasoon Kumar.N Vs Union of India

Dr.Stalin Kurian Vs Government of Kerala