“4. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention of the learned Government Pleader. A mere perusal of the provisions of Part I KSR which deal with various kinds of leave would reveal the underlying scheme therein which is that the sanction of various kinds of leave are contemplated only once it is established that the employee–employer relationship continues to exist without interruption. The difference in the kinds of leave sanctioned are only in respect of the periods for which an employee can remain absent from work and the monetary benefits, if any, that will be paid to the employee during the said period. Thus, when the provisions of Rules 97 and 98 of Part I KSR that prescribe the conditions for the grant of leave are interpreted, the interpretation to be placed must be one that recognizes the above scheme and its intent, and furthers such intent. In our view, on such interpretation, the phrase “caused in, or in consequence of due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position”, which appear in both the Rules aforementioned, cannot be construed in a narrow and pedantic fashion so as to exclude a person who was admittedly an employee, who was travelling from her residence to the place of work at the time when the accident took place. “
