IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15422 of 2008(J)
1. E.K. SONY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR,
3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.G.MANOJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 15422 OF 2008 J
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
As per Ext.P1 dated 29.9.2006, the petitioner was selected for
appointment as Senior Research Fellow (Contractual) on a consolidated
salary of Rs.7,000/- per month during the period of project or on
termination of the post whichever is earlier. The petitioner states that
while working as Senior Research Fellow at the Regional Agricultural
Station, Ambalavayal, she applied for maternity leave with effect from
23.4.2007. It is stated that on the expiration of the maternity leave of 135
days, the petitioner reported for duty on 5.9.2007. The allegation is that
the petitioner was not allowed to rejoin duty. Ext.P2 representation was
submitted by the petitioner on 7.9.2007 to the Registrar of the University.
Ext.P3 order of termination dated 13.8.2007 was issued by the Kerala
Agricultural University, terminating the service of the petitioner. In Ext.P3
it is stated that maternity leave would be available only if the employees’
have completed more than one year of service in the post, as per
Appendix VIII of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. On the ground that
the petitioner failed to rejoin duty within the stipulated time, her service
was terminated. Ext.P3 is challenged in this Writ Petition. There is also a
prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order, commanding the respondents to take back the
petitioner into service as Senior Research Fellow.
W.P.(C) NO.15422 OF 2008 J
:: 2 ::
2. The engagement of the petitioner was contractual. It was liable
to be terminated in the manner indicated in Ext.P1. On the ground that
the petitioner failed to rejoin duty within the stipulated time, Ext.P3 order
was issued.
3. In the statement filed by the respondents, termination of the
service of the petitioner is justified and it is stated that she is not even
entitled to get maternity leave. The case of the petitioner that she
rejoined duty after 135 days of availing maternity leave is denied by the
University. No material is placed before Court to come to a conclusion
that the case put forward by the petitioner is liable to be accepted. I do
not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P3 order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is entitled to get at least the benefit of maternity leave. The Standing
Counsel for the University submitted that the maternity leave was not, in
fact, granted, since she had not completed one year of service as
provided in the Kerala Service Rules. The statement deals with
elaborately the grounds on which the petitioner is not entitled to get
maternity leave.
5. On an over all consideration of the facts and circumstances of
W.P.(C) NO.15422 OF 2008 J
:: 3 ::
the case, I am of the view that the question whether the petitioner should
be granted the benefit of maternity leave is a matter to be considered by
the University. The petitioner would be free to make a detailed
representation to the University. The University shall consider the
representation favourably and pass appropriate orders in that regard. It is
made clear that this case need not be treated as a precedent by the
University and that appropriate orders could be passed in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. If the petitioner makes a
representation within a period of two weeks from today, the University
shall dispose of the same within a period of one month thereafter.
Petitioner submits that she waives the right to be heard in the matter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/