JUDGMENT V. Khalid, J. 1. Generosity is a virtue, niggardliness not. But could you be generous with others' money? This seems to be the dilemma in which the 1st respondent Principal, Bharatha Matha College, Thrikkakara and its Management appear to have fallen in denying to the petitioner, a priest, who was on the staff of the College, half pay for two admitted holidays - Saturday and Sunday. 2. The petitioner is a Lecturer in Physics. He applied for half pay leave on 31st January, 1980 on medical grounds from 1st February, 1980 to 20th March, 1980. Along with his leave application he produced a medical certificate issued by a private medical practitioner. Leave was sanctioned only for 15 days, i.e., from 1st February, 1980 to 15th February, 1980. He was informed by the Manager on 11th February, 1980 that if he wanted extension of leave he should produce a medical certificate from an E.N.T. Surgeon. On 28th March, 1980 the petitioner came to know that the entire leave applied for was not sanctioned to him. He therefore submitted a representation to the Manager, Bharatha Matha College, to which he received a notice dated 31st March, 1980 from the Manager asking for his explanation for his absence without leave for the period from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980. He sent Ext. P-3 letter to the 1st respondent requesting him to draw the salary and disburse the same for the period from 1st February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980. Not being favoured with a reply, he has moved this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse him the half pay and other allowances admissible for the period from 1st February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980 and full pay and allowances admissible for the period from 29th March, 1980 to 31st March, 1980. 3. I have deliberately refrained from adverting to the other facts of the case because they are not strictly necessary for a disposal of this petition. Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively Director of Collegiate Education and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. Ultimately, the Management took a lenient view and treated his overstayal from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980 as half pay leave. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively Director of Collegiate Education and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. Ultimately, the Management took a lenient view and treated his overstayal from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980 as half pay leave. 4. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to half pay for the two days, i.e., 16th February, 1980 and 17th February, 1980. There is no dispute before me regarding his other claims. It cannot be disputed that his original leave application was not granted in full. The management granted him leave for two periods, viz., from 1st February, 1980 to 15th February, 1980 and from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980. Since Saturday and Sunday are holidays, there is no question of the petitioner joining duty on the 16th and handing over the charge on the 18th. What exactly is the question of law regarding the petitioner's entitlement for pay for these two days? On these two days, it was not possible for him to work. What persuaded the Management to disintegrate the leave periods as mentioned above I am not able to divine for the reason that I do not have before me any material containing any disclosure on this stand. Normally therefore when the two periods for which leave has been granted is divided by admitted holidays the petitioner should be entitled to the same emolument to which he is entitled for the leave period. I think it necessary to refer to some of the rules brought to my notice. 5. Chap.9 Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules deals with leave. S.2 deals with General Conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention to R.66 which reads as follows: "Leave ordinarily begins on the day on which transfer of charge is effected and ends on the day preceding that on which charge is resumed. 5. Chap.9 Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules deals with leave. S.2 deals with General Conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention to R.66 which reads as follows: "Leave ordinarily begins on the day on which transfer of charge is effected and ends on the day preceding that on which charge is resumed. When the day immediately preceding the day on which an officer's leave begins or immediately following the day on which his leave expires is a holiday or one of a series of holidays, the officer may leave his station at the close of the day before, or return to it on the day following such holiday or series of holidays; provided that: (a) his transfer or assumption of charge does not involve the handing or taking over of securities or of moneys other than a permanent advance; (b) his early departure does not entail a correspondingly early transfer from another station of an officer to perform his duties; and (c) the delay in his return does not involve a corresponding delay in the transfer to another station of the officer who was performing his duties during his absence or in the discharge from Government service of a person temporarily appointed to it". Here the first block of leave ends on the 15th of February; the day preceding on which he has to resume charge. He can resume charge only on the 18th. He cannot work on Saturday and Sunday, the 16th and 17th; nor can he resume duty on Saturday. He could not resume duty on the 18th because leave was extended from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980. By the operation of this rule, the two days during which nothing could be done should be deemed to take the same character as the days in which half pay leave was granted to him. He could not resume duty on the 18th because leave was extended from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980. By the operation of this rule, the two days during which nothing could be done should be deemed to take the same character as the days in which half pay leave was granted to him. The petitioner relied upon R.74 - opening sentence - which reads: "Vacation may be taken in combination with or in continuation of any kind of leave, provided the total duration of vacation and earned leave taken together, whether the earned leave is taken in combination with or in continuation of other leave or not, shall not exceed the amount of earned leave due and admissible to the officer at a time under R.78 and 79........" Emphasis is placed upon the words in combination with or in continuation of any kind of leave. Taking the two intervening days as vacation those two days can be tacked on to the two blocks of leave granted to him. This submission, according to me, is fortified by the Government decision No. 1 appearing under this rule: "It is permissible to allow a vacation to intervene between two periods of leave. Similarly vacation may be prefixed or suffixed to leave or both prefixed and suffixed". Here it is the first sentence that is applicable. The interval of two days which admittedly are holidays should be deemed to have been allowed to intervene between the two periods of leave granted. I do not have any material before me to hold that the management had disallowed this vacation to intervene. In the circumstances of the case it is not permissible to hold so for the reason that those two are days on which the petitioner could justifiably be away. Assistance for this conclusion can be had from R.126A also. R.126A reads: "When holiday (s) follow (s) joining time, the normal joining time may be deemed to have been extended to cover such holiday (s)". The object of this rule is to permit officers to avail of holidays following joining time. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that R.66 speaks of officers on transfer and it does not apply to officers of the kind that we have before us. I do not think that the ambit of the rule can be restricted only to officers on transfer. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that R.66 speaks of officers on transfer and it does not apply to officers of the kind that we have before us. I do not think that the ambit of the rule can be restricted only to officers on transfer. The rule affords some guideline in cases where assumption of charge and transfer of charge fall for determination. 7. The manner in which Ext. P-2 is worded also lends support to the petitioner's case. What is stated is that the overstayal from 18th February, 1980 to 28th March, 1980 is treated as half pay leave. Overstayal means continuation of the position before 18th February, 1980. There is not the remotest indication in Ext. P-2 of the management having taken a stand that the intervening two holidays would be treated as days on which the petitioner is absent from duty. R.96 of the Kerala Service Rules is directly attracted to the case of the petitioner. R.96 reads as follows: "96. In the case of an officer governed by these leave rules, who remains absent after the end of his leave, the period of such overstayal of leave is, unless the leave is extended by the competent authority treated as follows: * * * * * * * * * * The officer is not entitled to leave salary during such overstayal of leave not covered by an extension of leave by competent authority." This rule makes it clear that overstayal will be treated as leave if extended by the competent authority. Here the overstayal is covered by the extension of leave. I therefore hold that the petitioner is entitled to half pay leave for the two days intervening namely, on 17th February, 1980 and 18th February, 1980. In the result I allow the petition and direct the disbursement of half pay and other allowances to the petitioner along with arrears of pay within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.