IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 22234 of 2000(V)
1. DR.M.G.SRINIVASAN POTTI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
O.P. No.22234 of 2000 (V)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Grievance in the original petition is that for the period from
12/06/1989 to 08/11/1989 the petitioner has been granted half
pay leave and that what the petitioner seeks is a declaration that he
is entitled to be granted commuted leave for the aforesaid period
with all benefits.
2. The petitioner availed of leave for pursuing PhD by
availing of leave from 1984 onwards. By order dated 12/06/1989,
he was directed to join duty, but he did not. The justification
offered is that the course was not over. In fact, on an earlier
occasion when the petitioner approached this Court and filed
O.P.No.9556/94 for regularising the period of his absence, in
paragraph 5 of the said judgment this Court held as follows:-
“However, even after 12/06/1989 the petitioner failed to
report for duty and another posting order was passed under
Ext.P2 dated 30/12/1989 and the petitioner joined only on
08/11/1989. Hence the period between 12/6/1989 and
08/11/1989 has to be treated as if petitioner was not on duty.”
It was thereafter that he was granted half pay leave for the said
O.P. No.22234/2000
-2-
period. Findings of this Court as contained in paragraph 5 of Ext.P1
judgment extracted above has become final. If that be so, the
petitioner and the respondents, who are parties to the judgment, are
bound by the findings in the judgment. If so, the period from
12/06/1989 to 08/11/1989 could have been treated only ordered
therein. On the other hand, contrary to the findings in the
judgment, the respondents have granted the petitioner half pay
leave, which itself is an undeserving concession. Therefore, the
prayer of the petitioner that the same period should be allowed to
be commuted is impermissible in view of the findings in Ext.P1
judgment.
The original petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg