STATE OF KERALA Vs. MARIA GORETTY T.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents entered appearance through counsel.

(2.) The only grievance expressed by the learned Government Pleader is with reference to the cost imposed by the Tribunal. While disposing of the original applications, the Tribunal after having observed that Annexure-A12 in O.A.No.734/2017 and Annexure-A9 in O.A.No.733/2017 are liable to be set aside, disposed of the O.A., with a direction to disburse the pensionary benefits due to the applicants after revising their scale of pay and also directed to disburse the amount due within a period of three months in O.A.No.733/2017. Similar direction was issued in O.A.734/2017. The Tribunal, however, found that the 2 nd respondent had totally disregarded the interim orders of the Tribunal dated 28.07.2016 despite the fact that the applicants continued to be out of duty by virtue of the interim orders of the Tribunal. Resultantly, the period between 28.07.2016 to 06.02.2017 was considered as leave without allowance under Rule 88(b)(iii) invoking Rule 137 Part 1 KSR. The Director of Panchayat, who was the 2 nd respondent in the O.A., was personally made liable to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-.

(3.) An affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent before this Court, wherein it is stated that he has joined as Director of Panchayats only on 04.11.2016 and on the same month he left for IAS, in service Phase III training. He came back after 27.12.2016, hence, he was not aware of the history of the cases until it was placed before him by January, 2017. The orders of the KAT were brought to his notice only on 14.01.2017 and immediately thereafter prompt action was taken on the orders. It is further observed that the leave application as per Rule 88(b)(iii) was forwarded to the Government as the applicants have not performed the duty in terms of Rule 137 KSR Part 1 and the 2 nd respondent had no authority to regularise the overstayal of absence for more than 120 days. Subsequently, the Government as per letter dated 25.04.2018 has informed that the period during which an officer abstains from duty for getting transfer to his convenience cannot be regularized as duty. Therefore, the said period was regularized as eligible leave. It is stated that the 2 nd respondent, the appointing authority, has no power to regularise the period of overstayal for more than 120 days and it is in the said circumstances, the Government permission was sought for.