K SUBBANNA Vs. HIGH COURT FOR ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-87
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 21,1992

K Subbanna Appellant
VERSUS
High Court For Andhra Pradesh Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

HOLY FAMILY ENGLISH MEDIUM L.P. SCHOOL VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-180] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the first respondent passed in ROC No. 759/86/C. Spl. (Com.) dated 12.6.1987 confirming the order in part of the second respondent in PR No. 423A/85, dated 15.11.1985 as invalid, discriminatory and illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently holding that the petitioner is entitled for commuted leave for the period from 19.10.1985 to 2.12.1985 on medical certificate.
(2.)The petitioner who was working as Attender was transferred from Kurnool to Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandyal by proceedings dated 8.10.1985. He reported to duty on 9.10.1985. He applied for Earned Leave from 19.10.1985 to 27.10.1985. Subsequently, he was absent and explanation has been called for. He request for treating the entire period of absence i.e., from 19.10.1985 to 2.12.1985 as commuted leave was refused by the second respondent vide his proceedings P.A. No. 423/A/85, dated 10.12.1985. But however, the High Court on appeal restricted the period from 28.10.1985 to 2.12.1985 instead of 19.10.1985 to 2.12.1985 as the petitioner has applied for earned leave for those days. When the petitioner is residing there only, he ought to have informed the court about his illness, if any. He was not admitted into any Government Hospital. It is easy to procure medical certificate from private Doctor. But the bonafides of the same have to be considered. As per F.R. 67 a Government servant cannot claim leave as a matter of right. When the exigency of public service so requires, the competent authority has got discretion to refuse or revoke leave. The second respondent was perfectly justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting commuted leave from 19.10.1985 to 2.12.1985. However, it is contended that in another case, the High Court has converted the leave into commuted leave. Each case depends on its facts and circumstances. Merely because in another case, leave on loss of pay was converted into commuted leave, it does not mean that the petitioner also stands on the same footing. There are only two Attenders in the Court of Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandyal. When the petitioner has caused inconvenience to the functioning of the court and in order to avoid the station, he applied for Earned Leave first and later extended leave for granting commuted leave, the Learned Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the same and treating it as loss of pay.
(3.)The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.