STATE OF KERALA Vs. M.A.JANCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala and its officers have filed this original petition challenging order dated 30-09-2019 in OA No.788/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent herein who was the applicant before the Tribunal filed that original petition praying inter alia for a direction that a period of absence from duty be treated as duty for all purposes and to disburse the pay and allowances for the said period. The documents referred to in this judgment are in the manner they are marked before the Tribunal.

(2.) While working as Extension Officer (Women Welfare) at Block Development Office, Mananthavady, the respondent applied for leave for the period from 14-11-2012 to 11-02-2013. However, leave was sanctioned only up to 28-11-2012. The respondent however continued on leave till 12-02-2013. A memo of charges came to be issued to her for unauthorised absence. According to her though she reported for duty on 12-02-2013, she was not allowed to either sign the attendance register or to attend her official duties. A reading of Annexures-A1 and A2 shows that the respondent was not allowed to rejoin duty on account of the instruction from Block Panchayat President that she must be allowed to rejoin duty only after obtaining permission in writing from him. However, by Annexure-A3 letter dated 30-03-2013 she was directed to rejoin duty, following which she rejoined duty on 10-04- 2013.

(3.) The respondent filed Annexure-A4 representation before the Commissioner for Rural Development seeking regularisation of her absence for the period after 28-11-2012 to 12-02-2013 and requested that the period from 12/13-02-2013 to 10-04-2013 when she was kept out of duty must be treated as duty for all purposes. The Commissioner for Rural Development issued an order on 20-03-2014 (Annexure-A6) directing to treat the period up to 11-02-2013 as eligible leave. The grievance of the respondent is that the period from 13-02-2013 to 10- 04-2013 during which time she was prevented from attending duty has also been directed to be treated as eligible leave. She, therefore, approached the Government through Annexure-A7 representation which was rejected by the Government through Annexure-A9 dated 14- 10-2014. Annexure-A9 was set aside by the Tribunal through Annexure- A10 order remanding the matter to the Government and directing that the entire matter be reconsidered after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Following the remand and after hearing the respondent the Government has passed Annexure-A12 order again rejecting the request of the petitioner.