ELIZABETH Vs. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. R. Rajendran Nair for the appellant and Mr. P. K. Ravikrishnan, Government Pleader, for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The appellant filed the Original Petition seeking to quash Exts. P - 4 and P - 6 to the extent it imposes a condition that the leave without allowance sanctioned to the petitioner from 16th February 1991 to 28th June 1,992 will not count for any (service benefits including pension, and for a further declaration that the period of leave without allowance availed by the petitioner will be reckoned for her pensionary benefits. A mandamus is also sought for directing the respondents to refix the petitioner's pension by reckoning the period of leave without allowance and disburse the arrears from 30th June 1992 till the date of disbursement. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition stating that the appellant cannot contend that the Government has no power to impose condition while granting leave without allowance to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the above appeal has been filed.

(3.) The short facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. The petitioner retired from service voluntarily with effect from 30th June 1992. She had been posted to Idukki as Deputy District Medical Officer on 15th February 1991. She applied for leave without allowances on medical grounds on 16th February 1991; as per Ext. P - L. The Government sanctioned the leave without allowances only on 16th July 1993 as per Ext. P - 4, after 2 1/2 years from the date of application, that too after her retirement on 30th June 1992. While sanctioning the leave without allowances from 16th February 1991, to 28th June 1992, the Government imposed a condition that the above period will not count for any service benefits including pension. The revision petition filed before the Government was also rejected as per Ext. P - 6. The Original Petition filed by the petitioner challenging Exts. P - 4 and P - 6 orders was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.