P.B. Wilson vs State of Kerala, The District Education Officer, The Corporate Manager and The Head Master, St. Francis Assissi

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner was working as Peon in St. Francis Assissi High School, Arthunkal, Cherthala Taluk. He took leave for various periods from 3.5.2008 to 22.5.2010. For some periods, he took half pay leave. While for certain other periods he took leave without allowance. The petitioner did not approach the Government for sanctioning leave without allowance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that application was made by the petitioner for granting leave without allowance and that application was forwarded by the Manager to the Government. But no document to prove the same is produced along with the Writ Petition. In Ext.P5 dated 20.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, which was forwarded to the Manager, it is stated thus:

I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that no leave other Leave Without Allowance under Appendix XII A KERs can be sanctioned for the purpose of better employment elsewhere and no regular leave can be taken in combination with or continuation of Leave Without Allowance under Appendix XII A KSRs. Here P.B. Wilson has entered on Leave Without Allowance under Appendix XII KSRs without obtaining prior sanction from Government. Hence you are requested to proceed against him as per Rule 9 under Appendix XII A KSRs. The Service Book of the incumbent is also returned herewith.

The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 20.5.2010 and Ext.P9 representation dated 17.9.2010 to the Manager. Various grounds have been stated by him to support his plea that he was entitled to leave during the various periods. The ill health of his mother, who died subsequently, the disease of his sister who is a spinster etc. are put forward in the representations. It is also stated in Ext.P7 that the application for leave was forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction on 18.5.2010. In Ext.P8 dated 21.8.2010 issued by the Manager to the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to show cause why Ext.P5 should not be implemented. Ext.P9 representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Manager after receipt of Ext.P8 notice.

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, direction quashing Exhibit P-5 after calling for the records leading thereto;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty with effect from 23.5.2010; and

iii. Pass such other orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice and for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

The petitioner has to get his leave regularized in order to obviate the consequences of Ext.P5 order. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Government for appropriate reliefs. I do not think the Writ Petition seeking to quash Ext.P5 is maintainable at this stage. The request of the petitioner was apparently not brought before the Government. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to move the Government or any other authority for appropriate reliefs, the Writ Petition is closed.