JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order in No.13231/R.h.3/2020 dated 16.12.2020 passed by the 4th respondent and directing the respondents to grant 30 days ordinary leave without escort to the convict namely Mohamed Zahir, S/o.Muthu Mohamed (C.T.No.3395) confined at Central Prison, Vellore. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, who is the wife of the convict, seeking for ordinary leave. 2. The husband of the petitioner viz.,Mohamed Zahir underwent trial in C.C.No.28 of 2016 for an offence under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 29, 22(c), 27A and 28 of NDPS Act 1985. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court also ordered that the convict will be entitled for set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 3. It is seen from records that the husband of the petitioner continued to be in judicial custody right through the proceedings and as on date, he has already undergone sentence of 5 years and 14 days. This is by virtue of the fact that the period undergone by him as an under trial prisoner will also be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioner, who is the wife of the convict, made a representation to the fourth respondent on 01.12.2020, requesting for ordinary leave for her husband in order to make arrangements for the marriage of their daughter. This representation was rejected by the fourth respondent through impugned order dated 16.12.2020, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner has undergone sentence only for a period of 2 years and 3 days. The fourth respondent had ascertained this period only from the date of the judgment that was passed on 06.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5. Heard Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. A convict is entitled for grant of ordinary leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called as -the Rules-), if any of the grounds provided under Rule 20, is satisfied. 6. A convict is entitled for grant of ordinary leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called as -the Rules-), if any of the grounds provided under Rule 20, is satisfied. In the present case, the ordinary leave was sought for on the ground that arrangements must be made for conducting the marriage of the daughter of the convict. This ground is covered under Rule 20(iv). 7. For the purpose of availing ordinary leave, the eligibility is provided under Rule 22 of the Rules, which states that the convict must have completed 3 years of imprisonment from the date of initial imprisonment. The fourth respondent while counting this period has come to a conclusion that the convict has undergone imprisonment only for a period of 2 years and 3 days. The fourth respondent arrived at such a conclusion by taking into consideration the date of the judgment i.e.06.12.2018. 8. In the present case, the convict continued to be in judicial custody right through the proceedings and therefore, he will be entitled for the set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C. If the total period is taken into consideration, the convict has undergone imprisonment for nearly 5 years and 14 days. Therefore, the convict satisfies the eligibility requirement under Rule 22. The language used under Rule 22(i) is 3 years of imprisonment from the date of initial imprisonment. This Rule does not say that the period of imprisonment will be calculated from the date of judgment. Unfortunately, this was not noticed by the fourth respondent while passing the impugned order. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The fourth respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dated 01.12.2020 and grant ordinary leave for a period of 30 days, as provided under Rule 22(ii) of the Rules. It is left open to the fourth respondent to impose any reasonable conditions. 10. This writ petition is allowed with the above directions.