Extension of leave period should be evidenced by an order of sanction, and unauthorized absence beyond the original sanctioned period of leave should be treated as unauthorized absence.

The petitioner joined service as Police Constable in the year 1972. As per Ext.P1 order dated 26.9.1980, he was granted leave without allowance for five years from the date of avail for seeking employment abroad. According to the petitioner, in 1986, he filed an application for extension of leave for another five years. Copy of the said application is not produced along with this writ petition because according to the petitioner, they are destroyed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application for extension on the expiry of every five years and in this fashion the petitioner continued away from duty altogether for a period of more than 20 years from the date of Ext.P1. It is admitted that except Ext.P1, no further leave was sanctioned by the department at any point of time, on expiry of the leave sanctioned under Ext.P1.

2. The petitioner contends that on 29.11.2000 he submitted an application before the third respondent Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City for permission to rejoin duty pending sanctioning of the leave. By Ext.P2 this request on the part of the petitioner was rejected pointing out that the petitioner had availed of leave for five years for taking up employment abroad with effect from 1.5.1981. But he has not thereafter applied for extension of leave nor has he been able to produce any order by the Government sanctioning extension of leave. In the circumstances it is possible to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty. The petitioner was required to produce any orders indicating sanctioning of leave beyond the original period of five years till 30.4.2001.

3. The petitioner was not in a position to do so. He submitted Ext.P3. The request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 was that his request for rejoining duty may be considered on humane and sympathetic ground and that orders may be issued sanctioning leave for 15 years from 1.5.1986 (or till the date of rejoining duty) and that he may be permitted to rejoin duty in the department at an early date.

4. The Government considered the request made under Ext.P3 and P4 order was passed. In para 3 of Ext.P4 order the Government indicated as follows:-

“Government have examined the matter in detail and taking a lenient view, order that Sri. Abdul Raman Pillai, PCT 4436 be readmitted to duty forthwith. Government also order that the period of his absence from service from 1.5.1981 till he rejoins duty be regularized as follows:

From 1.5.1981 to 30.4.2001

LWA for employment abroad under Appendix XIIA Part I KSR.

From 1.5.2001 till the date of his rejoining duty

Non duty without forfeiture of past service.”

5. After Ext.P4 was accepted by the petitioner he rejoined duty with effect from 17.3.2004 and he was posted at Museum Police Station. He thereafter submitted Ext.P6 before the Government for passing revised orders treating the period from 1.5.2001 to 16.3.2004 as duty for all purposes. In effect the petitioner wanted a variation of Ext.P4.

6. The request made under Ext.P6 was turned down by the Government as evidenced by Ext.P7 and it is thereafter that the petitioner submitted Ext.P8, which was purported to be an application for review. The same was directed to be considered by this court under Ext.P9 judgment and it was rejected under Ext.P11 order. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 reads as follows:-

“As ordered by the Honourable Court in the judgment dated 15.9.2006 in WP(C).24064/2006 Government have examined the matter in detail. The GO(Rt).No.564/04/Home dated 9.3.2004 was issued already by taking a lenient view on the case and readmitted the petitioner to duty and regularized the period of absence considering the pathetic condition of his family. In the circumstances the request of the petitioner to treat his absence from 1.5.2001 to 16.3.2004 as duty for all purpose, is rejected.”

7. Ext.P11 is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

8. Learned counsel for the petitio