N NARSAIAH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIST JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Head-Clerk in the AdditionalDistrict Court, Nalgonda, was asked not to avail of leave by the Additional District Judge. Nonetheless, he went on earned leave from January 2, 1984 to January 13, 1984, prefixing the holidays intervening on January 14 to January 16, 1984. He joined duty on January 17, 1984. A notice was issued to the petitioner to explain how he was entitled to make avail of the leave. He submitted an explanation. The Additional District and Sessions Judge by his proceedings dated January 25, 1984, concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to make avail of the vacation since it did not exceed fifteen days and therefore, rejected his claim. On appeal, the District and Sessions Judge by proceedings dated June 23, 1984 confirmed that order. On further appeal to the administrative side of the High Court also, those two orders were confirmed on April 10, 1985. Assailing the legality of those orders, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel forthe petitioner is that for the purpose of sub-rule 3(b) of Fundamental Rule 82 of the Fundamental Rules, the District Courts, Sub-Courts and Munsif Magistrate Courls working on civil side are classified as vacation department and the staff working in that department are entitled to avail of the vacations and for the purposes of vacations during Dasara and Sankranthi, the petitioner would be automatically entitled to avail of the same. I find it difficult to accept this contention. Subsidiary Rule 3 (b) declares vacation departments. Under the Civil Courts Act, the Courts of Dist. Judges, Subordinate Judges and Munsif-Magistrates doing civil work are declared as vacation department. Rule 82(a) of the Fundamental Rules provides that any period of recess which exceeds fifteen days in duration shall be treated as a vacation for the purpose of RuJe 82. Therefore, it is clear that if a vacation exceeds fifteen days, the staff is entitled to make avail of the same and for that period, the leave calculation under the Fundamental Rules does not apply. But if it is less than fifteen days, then, though it is a vacation department, the staff working therein are not entitled to make avail of the same as leave. Under these circumstances, the conclusions reached by the authorities are perfectly valid and do not warrant interference.

(3.) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate'sfee Rs. 350/-.