IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28281 of 2004(P)
1. K.I.MURALIDHARAN, S/O. K.R. ITTIADHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
3. THRISSUR CORPORATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/02/2011
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.28281/2004-P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner approached this Court seeking for a
direction to the respondents to consider the request
contained in Exts.P2 and P3 and permit the petitioner
to rejoin duty and retire on superannuation on
30/09/2004.
2. According to the petitioner, he was sanctioned
Leave Without Allowance by the first respondent as per
Ext.P1 order for a period of 2 years. Later, the leave
was extended by the first respondent by three years
from 16/12/1996 to 15/12/1999 and, thereafter, for
another five years from 16/12/1999 to 15/09/2004 in
view of his retirement on 30/09/2004. For cancelling
his leave, it is stated that he filed a representation
as per Ext.P2 and finally since no action was being
taken, he filed another representation as per Ext.P3.
3. This Court had passed an interim order on
28/09/2004 allowing the petitioner to rejoin duty in
case he has been continuing on leave without allowances
sanctioned by the first respondent upto 15/09/2004.
W.P.(C). No.28281/2004
-:2:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
was not allowed to rejoin duty.
4. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the
third respondent-Corporation, the averments in the writ
petition that his leave was extended by the first
respondent for a period of three years from 16/12/1996
to 15/12/1999 and, thereafter, for another five years
from 16/12/1999 to 15/09/2004 in view of his retirement
on 30/09/2004 are denied by the Corporation. It is
stated that the petitioner has not produced any
Government Order to substantiate his contention. In
that view of the matter, the writ petition is
dismissed. If the petitioner has any other grievances,
it is for him to approach appropriate forum. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms
\\TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE