SYED ABDUL WAHID Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Stenographer on the establishment of the Advocate General for the State has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of the official memorandum issued by the State Government and the consequential order made against him directing the recovery of the amounts drawn by him towards encashment of leave.

(2.) The petitioner was originally appointed as local candidate as a Stenographer in the office of the Advocate General on 10-2-1972 pursuant to which h,e joined duty on 14-2-1972. Subsequently the petitioner was selected for permanent appointment by the Public Service Commission. Pursuant to the said selection he was appointed on 18.7.1972. He was placed on probation for a period of two years as provided under Rule 18(1) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. While continuing on probation he applied for earned leave from 1.2.1974 to 2.3.1974. The said leave was refused in public interest Consequently. the petitioner could not utilise the leave As the leave was refused in public interest he surrendered the same and claimed encashment of the leave , as provided in the Ruales regulating Surrender of Earned Leave and payment of leave salary framed by the Governor under Art. 309 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In terms of the said Rules the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.466-20 paise as per the office order dated 12-2-1974. But subsequently, a memo dated 5-4-1975 (Ex-A) was issued. In the said memo the petitioner was directed to refund the amount drawn by him towards encashment of leave relying on the official memorandum, issued by the State Government dated 12.7.1971 clarifying that the Rules relating to grant of leave salary in respect of earned leave surrendered by the Government servant is not applicable to a probationer until the completion of the probationary period and the making of a declaration, that he has completed the period of probation satisfactorily and to local candidates.

(3.) Sri Murlidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the official memorandum issued by the State Government is contrary to the Rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and therefore it cannot prevail and consequently the memorandum issued by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to refund the amount already drawn is also not legal.