R PRATHIBHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from the service of the Sree Narayana College, Kollam, as a Selection Grade Lecturer on 30.6. 2007. While in service, the petitioner had applied for leave without allowances for joining spouse abroad for the period from 1.3.1982 to 1.6.1986. The manager of the college sanctioned the leave. Subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, it was noticed that the period of leave was not considered for the purpose of service benefits insofar as the Government had not sanctioned the leave applied for. Therefore, the manager forwarded the leave application to the Government for retrospective concurrence for the leave without allowances availed of by the petitioner. By Ext.P6, the Government rejected the prayer on the ground that there is no provision for giving retrospective sanction of leave without allowances under Appendix XIIC of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 and seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the appointing authority is the manager and, therefore, the manager has power to sanction the leave applied for by the petitioner. Insofar as the manager has sanctioned the leave, the Government is bound to grant retrospective approval for the grant of leave is the contention raised.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, as per the rules applicable, an employee cannot proceed on leave without allowances for joining spouse abroad, that too, for more than four years except after getting the leave sanctioned by the leave sanctioning authority. The relevant rules and the Government orders on the subject specifically stipulate that the authority to grant such leave is the Government. The petitioner is not challenging those rules or Government orders. That being so, the petitioner is bound by the same. Insofar as the petitioner has not got the leave sanctioned prior to entering on leave, I do not think that the Government can after 30 years, now grant retrospective sanction for the leave. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P6 order. Accordingly, the challenge against Ext.P6 order fails. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner have not yet been disbursed to the petitioner. The respondents shall see that the retirement benefits due to the petitioners are released to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.