SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35313

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Murali Purushothaman, J
RACHEL MATHAI – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) 40520/2024



Advocates:
MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A, MUHAMMED SAFEER A., KURIAN MAXIE, RAHUL S., RESHMI U.N.

Automatic termination of service occurs when an employee fails to return from leave without allowance as per the terms set by the employer.

Headnote:(A) Kerala State Electricity Board Service Regulations - Leave without allowance - The petitioner applied for leave without allowance for five years, which was sanctioned. Extension of leave was denied, leading to termination for non-joining duty. The court upheld the termination, emphasizing the automatic termination clause upon failure to return. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Employment Law - The court reiterated that the presumption of leave extension is not valid without formal approval, and the reasons for non-joining duty were insufficient. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner joined the Kerala State Electricity Board in 1992 and took leave to join her spouse abroad. After seeking an extension, which was denied, she was terminated for not returning to duty.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's reasons for not joining and upheld the termination order.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the termination and the presumption of leave extension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the automatic termination clause was valid and the petitioner had no grounds for challenging the termination.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner joined the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 23.11.1992. She applied for leave without allowance for 5 years for joining spouse who was employed abroad. Ext.P1 is the order of the Chief Engineer(HRM), the 2nd respondent, sanctioning leave without allowance under Appendix XII C of Part I KSR. Pursuant to Ext.P1, she went to Kuwait to join her spouse. Before the expiry of the period of leave specified in Ext.P1, the petitioner approached the Board for extension of leave without allowance for another five years. The same was rejected by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P2 communication dated 06.10.2010 and she was asked to report for duty within 15 days of receipt of Ext.P2, failing which her service will be terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner did not join duty pursuant to Ext.P2 due to the educational needs of her children. Later, by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 10.05.2011 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was terminated from the service of the Board with effect from 01.08.2010. From Ext.P3, it can be seen that, before termination, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 08.01.2011 which was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’.

2. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 representation requesting to reinstate her in service. However, Ext.P4 doesn’t bear any date as to when the said representation was submitted.

3. This writ petition is filed for a direction to quash Ext.P3 order of termination and for direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P4 representation and to re- appoint the petitioner to service.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

By Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, leave without allowance was granted on the condition that if the petitioner does not return to duty immediately on the expiry of leave sanctioned, her service will be automatically terminated. Though the petitioner sought for extension of leave without allowance for another five years on expiry of the leave sanctioned in Ext.P1, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2 and the petitioner was directed to join duty within 15 days. However, she did not join duty. After issuing show cause notice to her, which was returned unclaimed, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 proceedings terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than 13 years of the termination of her service. The reasons stated for not joining duty are that she had to stay back at Kuwait for the educational needs of her children, and she presumed that her application for extension of leave would be allowed. The said reasons did not find favour with the Board, and the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 terminated the service of the petitioner. The reasons stated do not merit any consideration by this Court either. The petitioner has availed leave without allowance for 5 years to join spouse with full knowledge that if she does not return to duty on expiry of the period of leave, her service will stand automatically terminated. Sanction or extension of leave cannot be presumed. Further, by Ext.P3 she was informed that her application for extension of leave is rejected and she was asked to report for duty within 15 days which she did not do. The show cause notice issued to her before termination returned ‘unclaimed’. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 order and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top