IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37861 of 2009(C)
1. G.MONY, JUNIOR ENGINEER (QS & C),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
5. THE GARRISON ENGINEER,
6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :11/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 37861 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Junior Engineer (QS & C) in the Military
Engineering Service. Earlier, he had submitted an application for study
leave for a period of 18 months from 1.12.2003. It was applied for the
purpose of undergoing M.S Course(Building Technology and Construction
Management) for which he was duly recommended by the fifth respondent
as per Ext.P1 and he was granted Ext.P2 sponsorship certificate. After
completing the studies he reported for duty on 19.7.2005. The application
for granting study leave was considered and reconsidered on requests at
various levels. However, all the authorities have rejected the request of the
petitioner. The petitioner is still pursuing the matter before the Engineer-
in-Chief as is evident from Ext.P20 dated 09.11.2006. Earlier, the
petitioner was compelled to avail earned leave for the purpose of joining the
course. The grievance of the petitioner is that even thereafter, the period
spent for study was not regularized. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the period has to be regularized under Rule 32.2.(e) of the C.C.S Leave
Rules. It is for redressing the aforesaid grievance that he has submitted
Ext.P20 representation before the Engineer-in-Chief, the third respondent.
W.P.(C) NO.37861 of 2009 2
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are
bound to regularize the period starting from 1.12.2003 to 19.7.2005
either by granting study leave or by granting EOL allowable as per Leave
Rule 32.2(e). Despite the receipt of Ext.P20 representation, no action has
so far been taken by the respondents. Non-consideration and non-
regularisation would entail not only loss of seniority but also break in
service and therefore, the respondents are bound to look into this aspect and
pass orders on Ext.P20 representation expeditiously, it is contended.
3. The third respondent is competent to consider the grievances
and requests made as per Ext.P20 Therefore, he is bound to consider the
same and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. At any rate, there
cannot be any justification for the third respondent for disusing the power
vested in him. Considering the consequences of non-consideration as
apprehended by the petitioner it will only appropriate that Ext.P20 be
considered expeditiously. There shall be a direction to the third respondent
before whom Ext.P20 is pending, to consider and pass orders thereon as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.37861 of 2009 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO.37861/2009
JUDGMENT
11th February, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.37861 of 2009 4