IMPORTANT POINT
The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Petitioner, a practicing advocate, has filed the instant public interest writ petition challenging G.O.(P) No.1/2019/GAD dated 31.01.2019, whereby permission was accorded to grant eligible/casual leave to the Government employees and teachers, who had not attended duties during nation-wide general strike. He has sought for the following reliefs:

(i). “To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit-P1 Order-G.O(P) No.1/2019/GAD dated 31.01.2019.

(ii). To declare that permitting casual leave or other eligible leave to the State Government employees and teachers and to disburse salary after absenting from service of general strike against the Central Government is illegal and unconstitutional.

(iii). To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to not to extend any kind of leave to the employees and teachers, who took part in the general strike by absenting themselves from duties by the issuance of Exhibit-P1 or other similar orders.”

2. Facts leading to the filing the writ petition are that, petitioner, a retired Director of Police, Finger Print Bureau, State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB), Thiruvananthapuram, seeks to bring to the notice of this Court the abuse of powers exercised by respondents 1 to 3, viz., State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary to the Government, Thiruvananthapuram; Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration (Secret Section), Government of Kerala, Trivandrum; and the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, in sanctioning eligible leave with salary for the employees under the State Government for all the two days on which, they took part in the general strike against the policies of the Central Government.

3. Petitioner has further stated that respondent No.2 has issued Exhibit-P1 order dated 31.01.2019, allowing the Government employees and teachers to avail casual leave or other eligible leave for 8th and 9th of January, 2019, the days on which they were absent from duty, without availing leave as a part of National General Strike.

4. Petitioner has further submitted that the Joint Committee of trade unions, including INTUC, AITUC, HMS, CITU, AIUTUC, TUCC, AICCTU, SEWA, LPF and UTUC, except BMS, have called for a General Strike/Bharath Bandh against the policies of the Central Government for two days from 8th to 9th January, 2019. Pursuant thereto, the organised trade unions blocked the rail and road. Petitioner has contended that those who opposed the general strike in Government service, made their signatures in the attendance register and enjoyed eligible salary in the month of January.

5. Petitioner has further stated that in the earlier years, State Government used to issue orders in advance for avoiding inconvenience to general public. The orders were issued restricting the entitlement of leave for the employees except on medical grounds with various restrictions. The District Collectors and Head of Departments were ordered to give directions to protect those employees, who are not on strike, and to ensure unhindered access to Government offices and institutions. Dies-Non was declared in advance, informing that the pay for the day in which the strike was taken place will be withheld from salary. The provisional recruits were warned with extreme penalty of removal from service, in case of absence on the date of strike.

6. Petitioner has further stated that in the year 2013 and 2016, a similar situation arose and the State Government have issued orders dated 18.02.2013 and 06.01.2016 (Exhibits-P9 and P10) similar to that of Exhibit-P7. According to the petitioner, there were clear instructions in the said orders prohibiting leave and for preventing violence or destruction of public property, and the District Collectors were ordered to ensure that normal functioning of essential services under their control is not inte