The conditions imposed at the time of granting leave clearly stated that the period of absence cannot count for any service benefits, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of Rule 8 due to the specific conditions of his absence.

1. The appellant with a view to take up employment abroad for bis own personal benefit made an application to the Government to grant him leave to enable him to take up employment abroad when he was serving as a Radiologist. Leave prayed for was granted and he was permitted to go abroad to take up employment by order dated 18-7-1980 as per Ext. P1 subject to the following express stipulations:

"That the leave without allowance sanctioned will not count for increment, pension or any other service benefits and will be recorded as such in the service records of the incumbent."

The appellant came back after serving abroad for his own benefit, on 5-3-1985. He staked his claim after his coming back to the post of Unit Chief Radiologist The right to claim consideration for that post depended upon the number of points he would acquire under the points system under which the length of service rendered was one of the factors to be taken in awarding units. The appellant on the basis of R.8

of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules claimed that the period of his absence of leave from 18-7-1980 to 5-5-1985 should be counted as service for awarding units. The State Government not having acceded to his request the appellant preferred O.P. No. 8279 of 1987. The learned single judge dismissed the original petition holding that the appellant having gone abroad for taking up employment after taking leave without allowances, he would not be entitled to the benefit of R.8 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. Consequently the original petition was dismissed. It is the dismissal of the Original Petition by the learned single judge that is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

2. Having regard to the express conditions imposed at the time of granting leave as incorporated in Ext. P1 which we have extracted above, it is clear that the period during which the appellant was on leave for taking up employment abroad cannot count for 'increment, pension or any other service benefits'. The expression 'any other service benefits' includes the benefit of service rendered during the period of absence. Hence on the language of Ext. PI it is obvious that the appellant having secured leave subject to certain conditions after having taken advantage of the said order Ext. P1 cannot now turn round and try to wriggle out of the conditions that were imposed by Ext. PI of denying him the service benefits during the period of his absence.

3. But the stand taken by the appellant is that the condition imposed in Ext. P-1 has to yield so that the statutory provision of role 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules should enure. It is in this background that the learned single judge examined R.8. R.8 provides that:

"8. Members absent from duty. The absence of a member of a service from duty in such service, whether on leave, other than leave without allowances for taking up other employment on foreign service or on deputation or for any other reason and whether his lien in a post borne on the cadre of such service is suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise fit, render him ineligible in his turn

(a) for re-appointment to a substantive or officiating vacancy in the class, category, grade or post in which he may be a probationer or an approved probationer;

(b) for promotion from a lower to a higher category in such service; and

(c) for appointment to any substantive or officiating vacancy in another service for which be may be an approved candidate:

as the case may be, in the same manner as if he has not been absent. He shall be entitled to all the privileges in respect of appointment, seniority, probation and appointment as full member which be would have enjoyed but for his absence."

The expression "other than leave without allowances for taking up other employment", clearly applies to the case of the appellant as he is a person who had gone on leave without allowances for taking up other employment. Such a person is clearly in