High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
S.SYED MUHAMMED v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 18897 of 2007(Y)  RD-KL 11491 (28 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 18897 of 2007(Y)
1. S.SYED MUHAMMED,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
2. THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (J)
3. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
4. THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF
For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.W.P.(C). NO. 18897 OF 2007
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner had availed of leave without allowance while he was working as a Steno typist in an aided college under the Directorate of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram, from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1981. According to the petitioner, he had rejoined duty after expiry of his leave on January 1, 1982. Shortly thereafter, he had gone abroad again to resume his duties there, after filing another application for leave without allowance. Petitioner was under the bonafide belief that his second application for leave would be allowed. But, it appears that respondent No.2 did not choose to do so, with the result, the petitioner was treated as an unauthorised absentee. Proceedings were initiated against him and he was dismissed from service. After a few years he came back to the country and applied for compassionate allowance.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Government has taken a decision against him on the application, as though it was WPC NO.18897/07 Page numbers a request for pension. More importantly, the order was passed by respondent No.2 without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. A perusal of Ext.P9 order, which is impugned in this writ petition, does not show whether the petitioner was heard or not. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it will be only fair if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Government. To that extent alone petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, Ext.P9 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate allowance strictly on its merit and in accordance with law after affording him an opportunity to be heard. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEvps WPC NO.18897/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEOP NO.20954/00 WPC NO.18897/07 Page numbers
1ST MARCH, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.