K PONNAPPAN PILLAI Vs. CHIARMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was sanctioned leave without allowance for going abroad as per Exhibit P1 order passed by the Board. He went abroad, returned, rejoined duty and retired thereafter. According to him, the period of leave without allowances should also be reckoned with for the purpose of pensionary benefits. According to him the Board considered his grievances and by Exhibit P8 order rejected his claim which is under challenge.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was sanctioned leave without allowance as per Board order No.C1/4766/82 dated 26/4/82. One of the conditions in the said order is that "leave period will not count for increment and pension". Petitioner accepted the conditions contained in Exhibit P1 and availed the benefit thereunder. No rule, notification or order contrary to the conditions imposed are produced now to press the claim made in the writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, Exhibit P2 Government order has not been adopted by the Board. Board has rightly said in Exhibit P8 that even without the adoption, the petitioner is bound by the condition laid down by the Board granting him leave. A Government order is not automatically binding on the Board. Board is an autonomous body. It can certainly adopt the Government order. But even before adopting the Government order, the Board has already imposed a condition in Exhibit P1. As such the petitioner is bound by the conditions contained in Exhibit P1. However, even as per Appendix XII A of Kerala Service Rules adopted by the Board and as per note below Rule 10, it clearly states that "those who have proceeded on leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad or within the country before the commencement of the rules will continue to be governed by the condition laid down in G.O(P) No.274/70/Fin. dated 29.04.1970 even if the leave extends beyond 16.12.1983." Therefore even as per G.O(P) No.274/70/Fin., the petitioner will not be entitled for counting the period of leave without allowances for the purpose of pension. Thus looking the matter from any angle, the rejection of claim for counting the period of leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits as per Exhibit P8 does not call for any interference. The view taken in Exhibit P8 that the petitioner is not entitled to count the period of leave without allowances for the purpose of pensionary benefit is strictly in compliance with Exhibit P1 condition, based on which the petitioner availed the benefit. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.