Somalal Vs. State and ors.

rajasthan service rules 1951 - rule 96(6)--medical leave for 131 day--confirmation order revoked--petitioner joined duties and in service--held, his confirmation be considered afresh and period of absence be treated as leave without pay if leave not due.;since the petitioner after his illness has joined back on 1.2.1986 and he is continuing in service, therefore, the respondents are directed now to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation afresh and his leave case and should also decide his leave case and he may be given whatever leave is due to him and if it is not due to him then all the leave may be treated as leave without pay.;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 24.9.86 recommended for grant of leave to the petitioner for 131 days. 19/20.8.87 recommended the case to the dy......to the petitioner for 131 days. the director, by his communication dt. 19/20.8.87 recommended the case to the dy. secretary, education department, rajasthan, for grant of above leave. the dy. secretary, education by his communication dt. 3.2.88 informed that the case of the petitioner is not covered under rule 96(6) of the rsr, therefore, it is not possible to grant extra-ordinary medical leave for 131 days. the petitioner was confirmed on 1.7.1987 by the order dt. 15.7.88 but this order was revoked by the order dt. 27.5.91 by the district education officer therefore, the petitioner has challenged this order by filing this writ petition and has also prayed that the petitioner may be given his proper fixation and increments and house rent allowance from 1986-87 onwards till this date.3. no return has been filed by the respondents.4. since the petitioner after his illness has joined back on 1.2.1986 and he is continuing in service, therefore, the respondents are directed now to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation afresh and should also decide his leave case and he may be given whatever leave is due to him and if it is not due to him then all the leave may be treated as leave without pay and the petitioner may be fixed according to the pay-scale, revised from time to time and he should be given all the allowances and increments which are due to him in accordance with the law. this should be done within a period of three months from today. a copy of this order should be sent to the district education officer, udaipur. learned counsel has requested for grant him interest which in the present case i am not inclined to grant. the request is over ruled.5. with these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.