PRADEEP KUMAR .R v Union of India and others (WP(C).No.63 of 2021)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRADEEP KUMAR .R, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, EX GS 176602 W ASSISTANT OF GREF, RESIDING AT MANNOOR KALEECKAL, KATTACHIRA, P.O.PALLICKAL, ALAPPUZHA-690 503.** **BY ADV. SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (BORDER ROADS), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS, SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN, RING ROAD, NARAINA, DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI110 0010.** - **3 THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 531 SSTC (GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE), PIN-930 531, C/O 56 APO.** - **4 THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 1082 FIELD WORKSHOP (GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE), PIN-931 082, C/O 56 APO.** - **5 THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, (GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE), DIGHI CAMP, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-410 015.** **R1-5 BY SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC** - **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** - **31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is stated to be working as an Upper Division Clerk in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF for short); and he impugns Ext.P15 order of the 2[nd] respondent - Joint Director, which directs that the period availed of by him for the purpose study, leading to the Degree of LLB, be regularized as Earned Leave/Half Pay Leave/Extra Ordinary Leave. 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P15 is egregiously improper, since it runs counter to the declarations and views of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, which he had obtained when, on an earlier occasion, his leave had been denied. He says that, as is evident from Ext.P9 judgment, this Court had directed the respondents to regularize the period during which he had absented from duty for the purpose of pursuing his education and to reckon it either as study leave or “any other leave”. ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 3** 3. The petitioner asserts that what was intended by this Court in Ext.P9 was that the respondents ought to have considered grant of study leave to him at the first instance and only if it was not so possible, then to have considered “any other leave”. He says that, however, in Ext.P15, the Joint Director has straight away gone ahead and granted him other categories of leave, without being considering whether he is entitled to study leave. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P15 be set aside and the competent Authority be directed to grant him study leave for the period during which he had undergone legal studies. 4. In response to the submissions of the petitioner as made by Shri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, Smt.Mini Gopinath, said that Ext.P15 is irreproachable, since, going by the directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the competent Authority was to ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 4** consider how the period during which the petitioner had absented himself from duty, for the purpose of undergoing studies, ought to have been regularized. She submitted that, as is without doubt from the observations in the said judgment, this Court did not direct that the petitioner should be granted study leave, but only that the period during which he was absent from duty be regularized by granting him any eligible leave. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P15 be not interdicted and that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the afore rival contentions and have also examined Ext.P9 judgment very carefully. 6. It is evident from Ext.P9 judgment, that a learned Judge of this Court had specifically adverted to all the relevant factors and inputs to declare that the petitioner is eligible to have the period during which he pursued his legal studies to ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 5** be regularized as study leave or “any other leave”. When one reads the judgment in its totality, it is limpid that what was intended by this Court was that the Authority must first consider whether the period in question could have been regularized as study leave and that if it was found not possible, then to grant 'any other leave' to the petitioner. 7. In such backdrop, when one assesses Ext.P15, it is perspicuous that the said order does not say anything about the study leave, but proceeds to order to treat the period in question as either Earned Leave, Half Pay Leave or Extra Ordinary Leave. This order is conspicuously absent as to why the period when the petitioner pursued his legal studies was not considered for grant of study leave; and this Court is, therefore, not in a position to clearly understand the mentation of the Authority in having issued the said order. 8. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore, ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 6** Smt.Mini Gopinath, learned Central Government Counsel, requested that the respondents be granted some time to file counter pleadings; but I am of the view that it would not be necessary because, it is now well settled without requirement for restatement, that an order will have to be supported by its contents and not by pleadings to be filed before this Court, when it is assailed through a subsequent judicial proceeding. (See for support **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978 (1) SCC 405]).** 9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter will have to be reconsidered by the competent Authority, adverting to the observations in Ext.P9 judgment and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Resultantly and for the reasons above, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P15; with a consequential direction to the ## **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 7** competent respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for study leave, adverting specifically to the observations and directions in Ext.P9 judgment and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, clarify that I have not spoken affirmatively about any of the rival contentions and that they are all left open to be considered appropriately by the competent Authority. This writ petition is thus disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** **MC/13.4.2021** **WP(C).No.63 OF 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.6.2007 WITH MINUTES RECORDED BY THE OFFICERS** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.5.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 27.5.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.7.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.8.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8.10.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.10.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.8.2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO 22668/2009 WITH TYPED COPY** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.7.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 22668/2009** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 31.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 11.9.2015 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 29.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 3.6.2015 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.8.2017 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.4.2019 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT**