N PUSHPANGADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While working as High School Assistant the petitioner went on leave for taking up employment abroad from 1.6.1977 onwards. The leave so granted was extended from time to time and the last in the series was Ext. P3, which was for four years from 9.7.1987. As per Ext. P4 the petitioner applied for further extension of leave for 7 months and 16 days i.e. till 25.2.1992. Until 25.2.1992 the leave was not sanctioned, though eventually it was sanctioned as per Ext. P5 on 25.3.1992. In the meantime, on seeing that sanction order was not coming and taking note of the expiry of the leave on 25.2.1992, the petitioner reported for duty before the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School on 26.2.1992 vide Ext. P6. The principal, in turn, sought the directions of the Deputy Director of Education vide Ext. P7 of the same date. There was no reply and the petitioner could not join duty. Subsequent representations to the Government also did not yield any result. While working as High School Assistant the petitioner went on leave for taking up employment abroad from 1.6.1977 onwards. The leave so granted was extended from time to time and the last in the series was Ext. P3, which was for four years from 9.7.1987. As per Ext. P4 the petitioner applied for further extension of leave for 7 months and 16 days i.e. till 25.2.1992. Until 25.2.1992 the leave was not sanctioned, though eventually it was sanctioned as per Ext. P5 on 25.3.1992. In the meantime, on seeing that sanction order was not coming and taking note of the expiry of the leave on 25.2.1992, the petitioner reported for duty before the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School on 26.2.1992 vide Ext. P6. The principal, in turn, sought the directions of the Deputy Director of Education vide Ext. P7 of the same date. There was no reply and the petitioner could not join duty. Subsequent representations to the Government also did not yield any result.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that permission to rejoin duty was illegally with held and that if he had been allowed to join duty on 26.2.1992 he could have availed of the benefit of Rule 60(c) of part I K.S.R., which would enable him to continue in service until the end of the academic year on 31.3.1992, in which case he could also have availed of the benefit of Pay revision, which would change his pay scale from Rs. 780-1320 to Rs. 1000-1810 w.e.f. 1.10.1989. Since the permission to rejoin duty was illegally withheld the petitioner contends that he should be treated as continuing in duty until 31.3.1992 and granted all benefits accordingly.

(3.) The stand of the Government reflected in the counter affidavit is that the benefit of Rule 60(c) is a special benefit intended for the benefit of the student community and that a person like the petitioner, who left the school for 15 long years, has no right to claim the benefit and that his normal date of retirement being 29.2.1992, he should be deemed to have retired on that day. It is based on this view that Ext. P9 communication was sent to him directing him to apply for leave for the period from 25.2.1992 to 29.2.1992. The petitioner did not comply with that directive and chose to apply for leave for one day i.e. for 25.2.1992 asserting that he should be deemed to be on duty from 26.2.1992 when he reported seeking permission to rejoin duty before the Principal.