Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed by the respondents in O.P. No.17133/1995 which was disposed of by judgment dated 04.07.2005. In the O.P., the respondents herein challenged the action of the appellant in interfering with the time bound higher grade allowed to him by Ext.P6 on the basis of Ext.P7 audit objection. By his judgment under appeal, the learned Judge upheld the entitlement of the respondent for the time bound higher grade granted to him and interfered with the impugned action. It is this judgment which is under challenge.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have considered the submissions made.
3. Admittedly, the respondent availed leave without W.A. No.612 of 2006
-2-
allowance for higher studies for the period from 12.03.1977 to 01.08.1980. By Ext.P4 Government order it was ordered that the leave without allowance shall be counted for the purposes of higher grade. It was based on Ext.P4 which was modified by order dated 16.09.1985 that the respondent was granted first time bound higher grade on completion of 10 years of service, with effect from 12.02.1986. Ext.P4 order was modified only by Annexure AI Government Circular dated 06.11.1992 and Appendix XII C of the KS.R. also came into effect only in 1995. This therefore shows that during the period from 1977-80 when the respondent availed leave without allowance for higher studies, Ext.P4 governed the field, which entitled him to have the said period also reckoned for granting time bound higher grade. In such a situation, the benefit granted to the respondent could not have been interfered with either by Ext.P7 audit objection or otherwise. We therefore fully concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge and do not find any illegality in the judgment warranting W.A. No.612 of 2006
-3-
interference in this appeal. Appeal merits dismissal and we do so.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE shg/