Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1847
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
DR.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT) 556/2023
THOMAS ABRAHAM, MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ASWIN.P.JOHN, R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, PAUL BABY, SWATHY A.P.
The court reaffirmed that the Government's duty includes informing public servants about eligibility rules affecting their leave applications.
Headnote:
Governance - Public Service - Rule 60 KSR - Leave Application Analysis
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Principal aged 62, applied for earned leave but later sought casual leave after declining the former. His request was denied based on a ruling regarding leave eligibility post-superannuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s approach to withdraw the application for earned leave and apply for casual leave was reasonable. The Government's obligation to inform him of relevant rules was emphasized.
Issues: Whether a Government servant is entitled to change leave applications post-superannuation and if the Government has a duty to notify him of rules affecting such decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling highlights the importance of good governance and clarity in administrative communications regarding leave entitlements as articulated in Rule 60 of KSR.
Final Decision: The petitioner is directed to continue in service and his casual leave application must be considered by the Government.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE(J)
This case depicts, in the matter of governance, how a Government or public official should respond to a request made by the Government servant. The public governance must be in consistent of the standards of highest nature to protect the welfare of the Government servant rather than being used as a tool to oppress the interest of the Government servant. Having said so, we come to the facts of this case.
2. The Petitioner, Dr. P.K.Balakrishnan, is the Principal of the Government Medical College, Idukki. He attained the age of 62 on 30.07.2023. However, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as a Principal, in the light of Rule 60(C) of Part I of KSR, till the academic year is over. Admittedly, the academic year will be over only on 30.04.2024. The petitioner suffered two major attacks and on third attack, the petitioner applied for earned leave for a period from
02.11.2023 to 30.12.2023. The said application is pending before the second respondent and in the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application for Casual Leave, after reporting duty on 16.11.2023. However, the application for Casual Leave was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 07.12.2023, noting that the petitioner has already applied for earned leave.
3. It is to be noted that the petitioner in this case had withdrawn the application for Earned Leave and submitted an application for Casual Leave. There is nothing wrong in that approach. If Ruling No.2 of Rule 60 of Part I, KSR would operate against the Government servant, that ought to have been brought to his notice either to re-consider his application for earned leave and to apply for casual leave. This is what good governance means and is expected from a Government or higher public officials.
4. Ruling No.2 of Rule 60 of Part I, KSR is extracted below:
The teaching staff of Educational Institution, who are allowed to continue in service beyond the date of superannuation till the end of the academic year, will not be eligible for any leave other than Casual Leave during the period of their service beyond the date of superannuation and if they apply for any leave other than Casual Leave during the period, they shall be retired from service from the date of such application for leave.
5. If option is exercised to treat his application as an earned leave, then of course, Ruling No.2 of Rule 60 of Part I, KSR would apply. A Government servant may not be aware of impact of Ruling No.2 of Rule 60, Part I of KSR. If the petitioner acts in ignorance, it is the responsibility on the part of the Government to point out the rigour of such rule to such Government servant.
In this peculiar case, we note that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier application for earned leave and applied for Casual Leave. This ought to have been considered by the Government. We, therefore, of the view that, the petitioner shall continue in service as Principal in the Government Medical College, Idukki and the Government is directed to consider his application for Casual Leave. This will be further subject to the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
