@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The petitioner was working as a Medical Officer in Municipal Dispensary run by the Pollachi Municipality. The petitioner went on leave on 30.07.1986. Her leave was not sanctioned by the authorities. She proceeded on Earned Leave from 02.3.1986 to 22.07.1986. Thereafter, she applied for extraordinary leave on loss of pay from 30.07.1986 for a period of 6 months. The Commissioner of Municipality refused her application and directed her to join duty forthwith. Disobeying the said direction, the petitioner continued on leave on loss of pay upto 29.01.1987. Further she again applied for leave for one year on loss of pay from 30.01.987. After the expiry of the leave, she did not report for duty or sent her leave application.
2. Meanwhile, she gave a representation to the Government on 18.9.1990. The Government gave a direction to the Director of Municipal Administration by a letter dated 20.9.1991 to permit her to join for duty. Accordingly, the Director of Municipal Administration, the second respondent herein directed the Municipality to permit her to report for work and also directed the other municipal employees who were responsible for not taking action against the petitioner. The petitioner finally joined duty on 04.06.1992.
3. The petitioner was given a charge memo under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970 charging that she had continuously absented from 30.07.1986 to 09.04.1990 thereby violating Fundamental Rules, for disobeying the orders of the Commissioner and from 29.01.1988 she had remained absent without any leave application. The petitioner submitted her defence statement on 23.02.1994. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tiruppur was appointed as Enquiry Officer by an order dated 31.08.1994. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 05.07.1995.
4. The Enquiry Officer in his report held the charges levelled against the petitioner need not be pressed, in view of the peculiar health condition of the petitioner''s child which warranted her personal attention to save his life and therefore, her absence from 30.07.1986 to 10.04.1990 may be treated as leave on loss of pay without Medical Certificate as a special case. Based upon the said recommendation, the State Government passed an order in G.O.(2D) No. 91, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 07.07.1997 held that the period of absence from 30.07.1986 to 03.06.1992 can be treated as Extraordinary leave without allowances relaxing the Rule under Fundamental Rules 18(2). Instead of removing her from service as per the earlier of the Government, it is suffice that the interregnum period was treated as extraordinary leave without allowance. It is this order which was under challenge before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7360 of 1998.
5. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply affidavit dated 27.08.2002. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that though the petitioner''s absence was condoned on the ground that she was attending to her child''s sickness, in paragraph 14, it was stated that she did not produce any document showing that her child was ill during the period for which she claimed extraordinary leave.
6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 35167 of 2006.
7. Mr. R. Muthukannu, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that under Fundamental Rule 9(6) as well as Rule 3 given there under, when a Government servant has to compulsorily wait for orders of posting, such period of waiting shall be treated as duty. Therefore, it is the stand of the petitioner that despite the petitioner''s reporting for duty, she was not allowed to join duty on 01.11.1989. Therefore, at least for that period, she should be paid wages. This Court declined to agree to any such request.
8. The petitioner moved the Government and got some favourable orders directing the Municipality to take her back to work. The Municipality itself has not been made as a party in the writ petition. Whatever may be circumstances, in as much as the petitioner got the benefit at the hands of the Government regulating her period of absence for four years as an extraordinary leave as a special case, she cannot claim salary for the period she never worked.
9. In the absence of any legal and enforceable provision in her favour, this Court is unable to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Government. The said order has been passed on compassionate grounds. Such a relief had not been granted to many other Government servants who were similarly placed. In any event, having got substantial relief from the Government, it is not open to the petitioner to improve her case by moving this Court and refer to certain provisions which do not apply to her case.
10. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
