High Court Kerala High Court

Dr. Vasudevan V vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dr. Vasudevan V vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15055 of 2008(P)


1. DR. VASUDEVAN V.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :26/05/2008

 O R D E R
                         V.GIRI, J
                       -------------------
                   W.P.(C).15055/2008
                      --------------------
           Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008

                       JUDGMENT

While continuing as a Tutor in Anatomy in Medical

College, Alappuzha, petitioner joined the Department of

Health Services in 1987 as Assistant Surgeon. While

continuing in the Primary Health Centre at Perambra,

petitioner applied for Half Pay Leave for a period from

30.9.1999 to 16.4.2000, which was sanctioned under

Ext.P1. While on leave, petitioner applied for leave

without allowance for a period of five years for taking up

alternate employment, as per Ext.P2. Apparently, though

the District Medical Officer of Health had recommended

the sanction of leave, second respondent, the Director of

Health Services, as evidenced by Ext.P5 dated 22.5.2000,

declined to recommend the petitioner’s application for

leave. Therefore, petitioner was not granted the same.

Petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation dated 24.6.2000

before the Director. But thereafter, he did not pursue

the same. Petitioner did not join duty and he was not

sanctioned leave as sought for under Ext.P2.

W.P.(C).15055/2008
2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P8

which is a communication received from the second

respondent requiring the petitioner to intimate the

Institution where he intends to work. By Ext.P9,

Petitioner replied that he only intended to take up self

employment at Perambra. Ext.P5 dated 22.5.2000 is

subsequent to Exts.P8 and P9.

3. Writ petition has now been filed eight years later

taking note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire

on 31.5.2008, seeking a direction to the respondents to

permit the petitioner to re-join duty. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that no disciplinary proceedings

have been initiated against the petitioner for

unauthorized absence. Therefore petitioner has a right

to re-join duty, it is contended.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader. Ext.P7 dated 3.4.2008 is

W.P.(C).15055/2008
3

an application filed by the petitioner before the Director

of Health Services seeking permission to re-join duty as

Assistant Surgeon.

5. In my view, petitioner is not entitled to a direction

as such. After all it is admitted that the petitioner was

not granted leave without allowance for taking up

alternate employment. Government servant is not

entitled to assume that leave will be granted and is not

entitled to remain out of service either for self

employment or taking up alternate employment unless

leave has been sanctioned in terms of appendix 12A of

Part-III of the KSR. In the present case, petitioner was

served with Ext.P5 wherein the Director of Health

Services had expressly declined permission to

recommend the petitioner’s application for leave. In the

circumstances, petitioner’s leave has not been

sanctioned. But he nevertheless did not either re-join

duty or pursue the matter further within a reasonable

time. Petitioner is now not entitled to re-join duty

W.P.(C).15055/2008
4

ignoring the absence for a period of more than eight

years.

6. For all these reasons, I do not find my way to issue

any direction at this stage to the respondent. Writ

petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs