Judgment :- The petitioner joined service as Police Constable in the year 1972. As per Ext.P1 order dated 26.9.1980, he was granted leave without allowance for five years from the date of avail for seeking employment abroad. According to the petitioner, in 1986, he filed an application for extension of leave for another five years. Copy of the said application is not produced along with this writ petition because according to the petitioner, they are destroyed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application for extension on the expiry of every five years and in this fashion the petitioner continued away from duty altogether for a period of more than 20 years from the date of Ext.P1. It is admitted that except Ext.P1, no further leave was sanctioned by the department at any point of time, on expiry of the leave sanctioned under Ext.P1. 2. The petitioner contends that on 29.11.2000 he submitted an application before the third respondent Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City for permission to rejoin duty pending sanctioning of the leave. By Ext.P2 this request on the part of the petitioner was rejected pointing out that the petitioner had availed of leave for five years for taking up employment abroad with effect from 1.5.1981. But he has not thereafter applied for extension of leave nor has he been able to produce any order by the Government sanctioning extension of leave. In the circumstances it is possible to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty. The petitioner was required to produce any orders indicating sanctioning of leave beyond the original period of five years till 30.4.2001. 3. The petitioner was not in a position to do so. He submitted Ext.P3. The request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 was that his request for rejoining duty may be considered on humane and sympathetic ground and that orders may be issued sanctioning leave for 15 years from 1.5.1986 (or till the date of rejoining duty) and that he may be permitted to rejoin duty in the department at an early date. 4. The Government considered the request made under Ext.P3 and P4 order was passed. In para 3 of Ext.P4 order the Government indicated as follows:- “Government have examined the matter in detail and taking a lenient view, order that Sri. Abdul Raman Pillai, PCT 4436 be readmitted to duty forthwith. 4. The Government considered the request made under Ext.P3 and P4 order was passed. In para 3 of Ext.P4 order the Government indicated as follows:- “Government have examined the matter in detail and taking a lenient view, order that Sri. Abdul Raman Pillai, PCT 4436 be readmitted to duty forthwith. Government also order that the period of his absence from service from 1.5.1981 till he rejoins duty be regularized as follows: From 1.5.1981 to 30.4.2001 LWA for employment abroad under Appendix XIIA Part I KSR. From 1.5.2001 till the date of his rejoining duty Non duty without forfeiture of past service.” 5. After Ext.P4 was accepted by the petitioner he rejoined duty with effect from 17.3.2004 and he was posted at Museum Police Station. He thereafter submitted Ext.P6 before the Government for passing revised orders treating the period from 1.5.2001 to 16.3.2004 as duty for all purposes. In effect the petitioner wanted a variation of Ext.P4. 6. The request made under Ext.P6 was turned down by the Government as evidenced by Ext.P7 and it is thereafter that the petitioner submitted Ext.P8, which was purported to be an application for review. The same was directed to be considered by this court under Ext.P9 judgment and it was rejected under Ext.P11 order. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 reads as follows:- “As ordered by the Honourable Court in the judgment dated 15.9.2006 in WP(C).24064/2006 Government have examined the matter in detail. The GO(Rt).No.564/04/Home dated 9.3.2004 was issued already by taking a lenient view on the case and readmitted the petitioner to duty and regularized the period of absence considering the pathetic condition of his family. In the circumstances the request of the petitioner to treat his absence from 1.5.2001 to 16.3.2004 as duty for all purpose, is rejected.” 7. Ext.P11 is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though leave was sanctioned only for a period of five years as per Ext.P1, petitioner had repeatedly submitted applications for extension beyond the period of five years altogether for a period of 15 years from 1986. These applications were not dealt with or rejected. According to the learned counsel, they must be presumed to have been granted. These applications were not dealt with or rejected. According to the learned counsel, they must be presumed to have been granted. Learned counsel refers to Ext.P3 judgment to contend for the position that when the petitioner sought permission to rejoin duty, the Government should have straight away accepted the same and the delay in passing Ext.P4 order cannot be attributed to the petitioner and hence the period from 1.5.2001 when the petitioner made a request for rejoining duty till 16.3.2004 should be reckoned as duty. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted that the Government had sanctioned the petitioner leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad only for a period of 5 years as per Ext.P1. On the expiry of the 5 years period the petitioner was expected to rejoin duty. In the alternative he could apply for extension of leave. But he could have continued in leave beyond the period of 5 years only if such extension was granted. Grant of extension of leave especially where such leave is for taking up employment abroad must be evidenced by a specific order passed in that regard. The theory of implied grant would be completely misconceived in a case of leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad. A Government servant is entitled to continue on leave for taking up employment abroad beyond the original sanction of five years only if orders are passed by the Government or competent authority specifically granting such extension. A Government servant is not entitled to presume that the Government has granted such sanction or extension, merely because orders are not forthcoming on the applications submitted by him. 9. In the circumstances the only inference that could be drawn is that the petitioner was not justified in not reporting for duty after the originally sanctioned period of leave. What the petitioner should have done is to report back for duty and then seek extension and subject to obtaining such extension he could have continued on leave without allowance or he could have availed of a fresh period of leave if orders are passed in that regard. The petitioner was not entitled to presume that the Government will grant extension. The petitioner was not entitled to presume that the Government will grant extension. At any rate there is absolutely no justification for any such presumption by the petitioner to enable him to continue for a long period of 15 years merely by sending an application for extension every five years. The conduct of the petitioner in this regard was clearly irresponsible. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that refusal to extend the leave is not evidenced by any order of the Government and therefore the application for extension of leave stated to have been made by the petitioner for the period subsequent to Ext.P1 should either be deemed to have been granted atleast considered as not rejected. In my view, no Government servant is entitled to assume that an application for extension of leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad should be deemed to be granted if it is not rejected Appendix-XIIA of Part I KSR contains rules for the grant of leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad. Rule 6 of Appendix XIIA of part 1 KSR makes it clear that where an officer does not return to duty immediately on the expiry of the leave, his service shall be terminated after following the procedure laid down in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1960. It is further stated that this condition shall be incorporated in every order sanctioning leave. Under Rule 9 of the said Rules those officers who absent themselves unauthorisedly without getting the leave sanctioned under these rules shall be proceeded against and his service terminated after following the procedure laid down in the aforementioned rule. It is further stated that request for re-entertainment in Government service in such cases as well as in cases covered by Rule 6 above, will be summarily rejected. Rule 11 stipulates that no relaxation of any of the above rules will be allowed. 11. It is therefore clear that as in the case of original leave, extension of leave period should be evidenced by an order of sanction of such extension of leave. There cannot be any presumption that the application for extension of leave should be considered as granted merely because no order rejecting the application for extension is passed. In fact the converse must be presumed. There cannot be any presumption that the application for extension of leave should be considered as granted merely because no order rejecting the application for extension is passed. In fact the converse must be presumed. If there is no order sanctioning leave or sanctioning extension of leave, it must be deemed to have either been refused in the case of original sanction or deemed to be rejected in the case of extension. 12. In such cases where a person who had originally been granted leave for five years merely files an application for extension and continues on such leave without extension being specifically granted, his absence beyond the original sanctioned period of leave should be treated as unauthorized absence. Such conduct should invite the application at the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 13. It was open to the Government to initiate proceedings against the petitioner after the expiry of the first five years period under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules for unauthorized absence. Such proceedings were not initiated by the Government. This court is not now called upon to make a comment on the conduct of those persons who are responsible for implementing the rules contained in Appendix XIIA of Part 1 KSR which specifically contemplated initiation of disciplinary action against the Government servant who fails to report back for duty after the period of leave is over. 14. Nevertheless taking a sympathetic view the Government passed Ext.P4 order on 9.3.2004 and permitted the petitioner to rejoin duty. This was obviously an extraordinary step but such permission to rejoin duty, after more than 15 years in circumstances where the petitioner had continued to remain away from duty without a specific order granting extension of leave beyond 1986 was made conditional upon the period from 1.5.2001, the date on which the petitioner made a request for rejoining duty till 17.3.2004 when the petitioner rejoined duty being treated as non duty without forfeiture of past service. In my view having accepted the benefit of Ext.P4 it is obviously not open to the petitioner to seek a variation of one portion of Ext.P4. I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P11 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P11 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P13 judgment to contend for the position that the Government is bound to permit, any person who comes after completing his leave and seeks readmission to duty and the period during which such Government servant is kept waiting when the Government is considering his readmission to duty shall necessarily be treated as duty for all purposes. A perusal of Ext.P13 judgment would show that the factual situation dealt with in Ext.P13 judgment was completely different. The petitioner in Ext.P13 judgment commenced service with effect from 1.12.1979 as Assistant Surgeon. He found it difficult to put up with the weather conditions at idukki and had to enter on leave. He applied for leave on medical ground on 5.8.1995 for a period of one year. Apparently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent. Leave was not sanctioned and the petitioner wanted to rejoin duty. Such application was made by him before the expiry of the period of leave originally sanctioned. Apparently, no orders were passed on the said application for rejoining duty. But in the meanwhile disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Government found him guilty of unauthorized absence and imposed on him a penalty of barring of increments and thereafter the period from 5.8.1995 to 4.8.1996 was treated as eligible leave. But no orders were passed for the subsequent period from 5.8.96 till 4.3.1997 when the petitioner had rejoined duty. It was this period of 7 months that this court found, ought to have been treated by the Government, as duty. It is clear that the factual situation dealt with in Ext.P13 judgment was completely different. Had the petitioner submitted an application for rejoining duty after the expiry of the leave sanctioned under Ext.P1, there could have been some substance or justification in his plea. That was not done in the present case. I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.