A review petition cannot introduce new contentions not raised in the original petition, and eligibility for increments during leave is governed by specific rules regarding service duration.

ORDER

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

This review petition is preferred against the judgment passed by this court on 12.3.2019 in O.P. (KAT)No.101/2019. In the said judgment, this court found that the review petitioner, who availed leave without allowance for study purposes under Appendix XIIB, Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’, for short) before completion of her probation, is not eligible for getting increments during the leave period, despite the issuance of Annexure A5 Government Order. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, the court further observed that leave without allowance as per Rule 91A of Part I of KSR can be granted only to those officers who have completed five years of service while entering on leave and that Ext.P4 judgment in W.A.No.1978/2006 could not be cited as a precedent in favour of the petitioner as there is nothing in the said judgment to show that the case under consideration was in respect of availing of leave without allowance before completing probation.

2. In the present review petition it is contended that the observation made by this court in paragraph 2 suffers an error apparent on the face of the record. Some of the grounds raised by the petitioner are quoted herein below:

“A. It is submitted that the findings and observations of this Hon'ble Court in Paragraph 2 of the judgment suffers an error apparent on the face of the records which requires review of the judgment.

B. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner was granted leave, ie on 24/12/1998, the rigour of five years officiating or continuous service was mandated for extending the benefit of Rule 91A of Part I KSR. But the hardships caused to the tutors working in the Medical Colleges who were appointed with the basic qualification of MBBS was brought to the notice of the Government by way of representation and the Government in relaxation of the rigour of five years continuous or officiating service, was pleased to grant exemption of that rigour and ordered to reckon their period of the course for the purpose of granting increments. In fact, there was no corresponding appendix to Rule 91A since it was newly introduced Rule with a specific purpose. In fact, before the introduction of Rule 91A, Rule 99 was available in the Rules, which reads:

"99. Leave may be granted to officers on such terms as the Government may by general order prescribe to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instruction. The detailed rules framed under this rule are given in Appendix-Vocational Instructor.

Note: For rule regarding the grant of leave without allowance for study purposes in the case of officers not in permanent employ, see Rule 91".

Appendix VI governed the field with reference to the leave granted under Rule 99. Going by the terms of Appendix VI, a person who has availed leave under that Rule is entitled for all service benefits including salary, for that period. Clause 19 of the Appendix says that, study leave shall count as service for promotion, pension and seniority. It shall also count as service for increments in the post in which the Government servant would have continued but for going on study leave. It is replacing Rule 99 that Rule 91A was inserted as an independent clause and that since the only enabling provision to grant study leave is Rule 91A for undergoing P.G Course like Teachers, Engineers and Doctors. Quoting of Appendix XII B in the leave granting order has no relevance at all since it deals with the grant of leave under Rule 88 or 91. Rule 91 does not cover the area covered by Rule 91A so also Rule 88. Rule 88 deals with leave without allowance when no leave is available. It is submitted that it is with reference to the Medical Officers and Teaching Staff in the Medical Colleges that executive orders are issued and that th