The High Court affirmed the finality of the Tribunal's decision regarding leave recognition, emphasizing strict compliance by the Government with Tribunal's orders.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.(EKM)No.678 of 2019 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P3 order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent herein, in pursuance of the application submitted by him, was selected by the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (‘ICPR’ for short) for the Post Doctoral Research Award. Accordingly, by Annexure A6 order, the 1^st petitioner had accorded Ex-Post facto sanction to relieve the respondent from the post of Senior Scale Lecturer in Philosophy, Government Brennen College, Thalassery, with effect from 28.04.2000 for joining as a Research fellow in the ICPR. The respondent, after completing the post- doctoral work, rejoined in Collegiate service on 28.04.2002. In terms of Annexure A14 order dated 09.08.2004, accepting the scheme framed by the UGC, to the effect that the period spent on Post Doctoral Research will be treated as duty, and Annexure A15 guidelines framed by the UGC wherein conditions like the grant of full salary of the awardee with admissible allowances, will be reimbursed to the parent institution and that the awardee, will further continue to earn normal increment and maintain his seniority, were incorporated, the respondent stood entitled to have his period of leave from 28.04.2000 to 27.04.2002, as duty. But the 1^st petitioner, without any application of mind, basis or criteria, by relying on Rule 88 Part I KSR, which had absolutely no application, treated the aforesaid period as leave without allowances by Annexure A20 order dated 14.11.2008. Though the respondent sought review, the same was again rejected by Annexure A24 order dated 01.07.2010, further maintaining that Annexure A14 order can be made applicable only from the date of issuance of the said order. However, by order dated 22.03.2018 in T.A.No.5726 of 2012 filed by the respondent, the Tribunal quashed Annexures A20 and A24 orders and, after finding that the respondent is entitled to succeed, had directed the 1^st petitioner to dispose of the matter afresh after giving an opportunity for hearing to the respondent. In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order, the Tribunal positively came to the conclusion, by giving valid reasons, that the respondent is entitled to have his period of fellowship as duty. The grievance of the respondent is that, notwithstanding the aforesaid Order of the Tribunal, the 1^st petitioner again, by Annexure A37 order dated 23.11.2018, rejected the claim of the respondent for treating the period from 28.04.2000 to 27.04.2002, as duty. Hence, the respondent- applicant filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A37 order and set aside the same.

ii) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the period the applicant had spent on Post Doctoral Research viz. from 28.04.2000 to 27.04.2002, with the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, as duty for all purposes.

iii) Declare that the period from 28.04.2000 to 27.04.2002, during which the applicant had undergone Post Doctoral Research in Philosophy, in the light of Annexure A35 order of this Hon’ble Tribunal, should be counted for increments/Higher Grade/Pension etc. and that he cannot be denied the said benefits on any ground whatsoever”.

3. In the origi