JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows [See page 9 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)]: "1. To set aside Exhibit P2 impugned Order dated 17.10.2019 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA No. (EKM) 80/2016. 2. To issue other reliefs, this Honourable Court may deem fit in the Original Application." 2. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal and Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, learned Counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 O.A. (Ekm) No.80/2016 filed by the sole respondent herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are as follows [See pages 21 & 22 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)]: "(i) Direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A8 within such short time as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant; (ii) Declare that the leave availed by the applicant from 14.11.2004 to 6.6.2005 was on medical certificate and the above leave period is to be regularised as leave without allowance on medical certificate and that the above leave without allowance will count for increment, higher grade, pension and accumulation of earned leave; (iii) Direct the 1st respondent to sanction the leave without allowance applied for by the applicant for the period from 14.11.2004 to 6.6.2005 as leave without allowance on medical certificate and to further direct the Government to treat the above leave period as one liable to be reckoned for increment, higher grade, pension etc. (iv) Issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit & proper. (v) Grant costs of this application." 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered Ext.P-2 final order dated 17.10.2019 in O.A. (Ekm) No.80/2016 holding that the impugned conditions imposed by the State Government in Anx.A5 G.O.(Rt) No. 3070/2012/H&FWD dated 22.9.2012 to the limited extent it has stipulated that the Leave Without Allowance (LWA) sanctioned is one otherwise with medical certificate, and which will be further subject to the condition that the same will not count for increment, higher grade, pension, accumulation of earned leave, etc. and has accordingly declared that the original applicant was eligible to secure sanction of the leave sought for, which was one on LWA on medical certificate and that the period of leave will count for service benefits and therefore, R-1 in the O.A. (State Government) was directed to pass necessary orders in the matter within two months. It is this final verdict at Ext.P-2 that is under challenge in this original petition. 5. It may be apposite to make a brief reference to the factual aspects in this case. The original applicant herein, who is a qualified doctor, while holding the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Health Services of the State Government, had submitted two applications as per Anx.A1 seeking for LWA on medical grounds for the period from 14.11.2004 to 6.6.2005, for a total period of 205 days. From a reading of Anx.A6 letter dated 25.7.2007 issued by the Director of Health Services, it can be seen that the matter was also referred to the Accountant General, who has also recommended that the applicant is eligible for the leave. However, a reading of Anx.A6 would indicate that the recommendation made either by the Accountant General or by the Director of Health Services was that the applicant was eligible for leave under Rule 91 of Part I KSR. Further, in para 4 thereof, reference is to recommend leave on medical certificate under Rule 91A of Part I KSR. However, the substance of Anx.A6 recommendation made by the Director of Health Services and that too after getting the opinion of Accountant General is that the applicant was eligible for leave sought for by her and accordingly, the Director of Health Services had issued Anx.A6 letter dated 25.7.2007 addressed to the competent authority of the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department, recommending thereby that the applicant may be granted leave on medical grounds. 6. It appears that for a long period no orders were passed by the Government in the matter. Ultimately, the Government has passed Anx.A5 G.O.(Rt) No. 3070/2012/H&FWD dated 22.9.2012 ordering that the applicant is thereby sanctioned LWA, but otherwise that on medical certificate for 205 days for the abovesaid period under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, but subject to condition that the said LWA will not count for increment, higher grade, pension, accumulation of earned leave, etc. 7. 7. Earlier when no formal orders were passed by the Government, the applicant had made enquiries and she was informed by Anx.A2 letter dated 8.4.2011 issued from the office of the Director of Health Services, that the matter was then pending with the Government for want of fitness certificate. Later, it appears that on 30.4.2011, the fitness certificate was duly forwarded by the DMO, Kozhikode, to the Director of Health Services. It is thereafter that, ultimately, the leave was sanctioned in terms of the impugned Anx.A5 G.O.(Rt) No. 3070/2012/H&FWD dated 22.9.2012 as aforesaid, the applicant had filed representations before the State Government as per Anx.A-7 dated 12.10.2012 and Anx.A-8 representation dated 12.10.2014, and there was no response thereto. It is thereafter, that the applicant has filed the instant O.A. which has led to the impugned verdict at Ext.P-2.There is no dispute that the leave applied by the applicant was for securing LWA on medical certificate in terms of Rule 88 of Part I KSR. However, it is also to be noted that the applicant has already retired from service on 31.3.2014, and the leave that is sought for is for the years 2004 & 2005, and the Tribunal has rendered the verdict in this case as early as on 17.10.2019. 8. Rule 65 of Part I KSR stipulates that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. When the exigencies of the public service so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. The Note appended thereto stipulates that the nature of the leave due and applied for by an officer cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority and while it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke the leave due and applied for, it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave. 9. Rule 88(i) of Part I KSR is a general provision which stipulates that except in the case of an officer in permanent employment, the duration of leave without allowances shall not exceed 3 months on any one occasion. 10. 9. Rule 88(i) of Part I KSR is a general provision which stipulates that except in the case of an officer in permanent employment, the duration of leave without allowances shall not exceed 3 months on any one occasion. 10. However, Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR clearly stipulates that all leave except leave without allowances taken otherwise than on medical certificate and service on deputation count for increments in the time-scale applicable to a post in which an officer was officiating at the time when he proceeded on leave or deputation and would have continued to officiate but for his proceeding on leave or deputation. Though, Rule 88 does not explicitly speak about LWA on medical certificate or on medical grounds, Rule 33(b)(2) explicitly envisages the category of leave without allowances on medical certificate. The clear mandate of Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR is that, all leave except LWA taken otherwise than on medical certificate and service on deputation, will count for increments etc. Therefore, the condition that increments will not be reckoned for the grant of LWA, will not be applicable in a case where leave sought for and granted as the one for LWA on medical certificate. 11. Part III of KSR deals with pensionary aspects. Rule 26 of Part III KSR, as it stood prior to the amendment made effective as per S.R.O. No.918/2009 w.e.f 5.11.2009 provided as follows: “26. Time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified.” Subsequently, the said provision has been amended as per S.R.O. No.918/2009 w.e.f. 5.11.2009 and after such amendment, Rule 26 provides as follows: “Rule 26(a) Time passed on leave of all kinds with allowances shall count as qualifying service. Time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified.” Subsequently, the said provision has been amended as per S.R.O. No.918/2009 w.e.f. 5.11.2009 and after such amendment, Rule 26 provides as follows: “Rule 26(a) Time passed on leave of all kinds with allowances shall count as qualifying service. (b) Time passed on leave of all kinds without allowances shall not count as qualifying service, except the period of Leave Without Allowances availed of under Rule 88, Part I, Kerala Service Rules, on medical certificate, Leave Without Allowances availed of under Rule 91A, Part I, Kerala Service Rules for study purposes subject to the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 33 (b)(2), Part I, Kerala Service Rules and Leave Without Allowances up to 60 days taken under the proviso to Rule 102, Part I, Kerala Service Rules in continuation of maternity leave.” It is indisputable that the applicant had submitted Anx.A1 leave application for LWA on medical grounds with medical certificate for the period from 14.11.2004 to 6.6.2005 at the relevant time in the year 2004. At that time, the unamended provisions of Rule 26 of Part III KSR had governed the field. However, it appears from a reading of the impugned proceedings that Anx.A5 rejection order has been passed on 22.9.2012 on the premise as if the amended provisions of Rule 26 of Part III KSR made effective from 5.11.2009 would apply in the instant case, as the rejection order at Anx.A5 passed on 22.9.2012 was issued after the coming into force of the amended provisions of the Rule. The said premise is legally wrong. Since the applications for leave have been submitted at a time when the amended provisions were not in force and the leave sought for was also for the periods during the subsistence of unamended Rule, there cannot be any doubt that only the unamended provisions of Rule 26 as it stood prior to the amendment made effective from 5.11.2009 will alone apply in the instant case. That being so, Rule 26, as it stood then, clearly mandates that time passed on leave on all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service, unless otherwise specified. 12. That being so, Rule 26, as it stood then, clearly mandates that time passed on leave on all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service, unless otherwise specified. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Elizabeth v. Director of Health Services [1998 KHC 596 = 1998 (2) KLT (SN) 82] has inter alia dealt with the application of the unamended provisions of Rule 26 of Part III KSR in para 7 thereof, and has held therein that Rule 26 stipulates for counting the time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances as qualifying service for pension unless otherwise specified, and it does not empower the Government to impose a condition while granting the leave without allowances that the period of such leave will not count for any service benefits including pension and that, even assuming that Rule 26 empowers the Government to do so, the grounds on which the period will be treated as non qualifying, will have to be laid down by general or special order issued from time to time, and that in the said case, no such order has been issued by the Government. Further, by placing reliance on Rule 65 of Part I KSR, the Division Bench also held therein that while it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke the leave due and applied for, it is not open to the authority to alter the nature of such leave. Therein, it was also held that the impugned order issued by the Government had the effect of altering of the nature of the leave sought for by the incumbent concerned, etc. Further, it can be seen that even if the unamended provisions of Rule 26 have the effect of empowering the Government to make a contra specification that LWA will not count for qualifying service for pension, etc., the same should have been done only with prior notice to the applicant, which has not been done in the instant case. For all these reasons, it has to be held that the impugned prescriptions in Anx.A5 order dated 22.9.2012 ordering that the LWA should be treated as otherwise than on medical certificate and that it will not count for the benefits including pension mentioned therein, etc. are illegal and ultra vires. 13. For all these reasons, it has to be held that the impugned prescriptions in Anx.A5 order dated 22.9.2012 ordering that the LWA should be treated as otherwise than on medical certificate and that it will not count for the benefits including pension mentioned therein, etc. are illegal and ultra vires. 13. As mentioned herein above, the Division Bench of this Court has held in the decision in Elizabeth v. Director of Health Services [1998 KHC 596 = 1998 (2) KLT (SN) 82] (Judgment dated 7.10.1998 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1670/1998) that in view of the specific mandate contained in statutory Note appended under Rule 65 of Part I KSR, though, the sanctioning authority may have discretion to refuse or revoke a leave, the said authority does not have any jurisdiction to alter the nature of the leave sought for, by the employee concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench in Elizabeth’s case supra had also dealt with the applicability of Rule 26 of Part III KSR. The Lordship of the Division Bench has clearly held that Rule 26 of Part III KSR does not empower the State Government to impose a condition that while granting LWA, the period of such leave will not count for any service benefits including pension, etc. It will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Elizabeth’s case supra, para 7, which reads as follows: "7. In this case, the leave application was made under Ext. P1 on 16th February 1991 wherein the appellant requested the Director of Health Services to permit her to proceed on leave without allowances from 16th February 1991. She made a further representation to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Health Department through the District Medical Officer, Idukki which is a notice under R.56 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules requesting sanction for her retirement with effect from 30th June 1992. By Ext. P-3 the Government permitted the appellant to retire voluntarily with effect from 30th June 1992 pending settlement of liabilities, if any outstanding against her. It is after that the Government by Ext. P-4 order dated 16th July 1993 sanctioned the leave without allowances applied for by the appellant subject to the condition that the period of leave will not count for any service benefits including pension. It is after that the Government by Ext. P-4 order dated 16th July 1993 sanctioned the leave without allowances applied for by the appellant subject to the condition that the period of leave will not count for any service benefits including pension. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective parties. R.64, 65, 77 (ix) and 88 of Part I and R.26 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules are the provisions relevant for the purpose of deciding the question involved in this case. Those provisions are extracted hereunder. "64. The Government may issue orders specifying the authority by whom leave, other than study leave and leave without allowances exceeding a period of four months at a time, may be granted. The power to sanction leave without allowances exceeding a period of four months at a time will rest with Government. 65. Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. When the exigencies of the public service so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. Note. The nature of the leave due and applied for by an officer cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority and while it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke the leave due and applied for, it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave. * * * * ** 77. In these rules: * * * * ** (ix) 'Completed years of service' and 'one year's continuous service' mean continuous service of the specified duration under the Government of Kerala and include periods spent on duty as well as on leave including leave without allowances. * * * * ** 88. Leave without allowances. (i) Leave without allowances may be granted to any officer in special circumstances (a) when no other leave is by rule admissible, (b) when other leave is admissible by the concerned applies in writing for the grant of leave without allowances. (ii) Except in the case of an officer in permanent employ, the duration of leave without allowances shall not exceed 3 months on any one occasion." * * * * ** Part III 26. Time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified. (ii) Except in the case of an officer in permanent employ, the duration of leave without allowances shall not exceed 3 months on any one occasion." * * * * ** Part III 26. Time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified. The authority competent to declare a spell of leave as non qualifying for pension will be the Government and the grounds on which the periods of leave will be treated as non qualifying, will be laid down by general or special orders issued from time to time. This decision takes effect from 27th June 1974. [G. O. (P) 32/77 / Fin., dated 22nd January 1977.]" We are unable to share the views of the learned Single Judge on R.26 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. R.26 stipulates for counting the time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances as qualifying service unless otherwise specified, and it does not empower the Government to impose a condition while granting the leave without allowances that the period of such leave will not count for any service benefits including pension. Even assuming that R.26 empowers the Government to do so, the grounds on which the period will be treated as non qualifying will have to be laid down by general or special order issued from time to time. In this case no such order has been issued by the Government. As per the note to R.65 while it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke the leave due and applied for, it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave. In this case the Government has not refused or revoked the leave without allowances applied for by the Government, but, in effect, has altered the nature of the leave applied for by the appellant as one under Appendix XII -A of the Kerala Service Rules, viz. leave without allowances for employment elsewhere, which will not count for any service benefits including pension. It is not the case of the Government that the appellant has taken up any employment elsewhere. The appellant had applied for leave without allowances on medical grounds." 14. leave without allowances for employment elsewhere, which will not count for any service benefits including pension. It is not the case of the Government that the appellant has taken up any employment elsewhere. The appellant had applied for leave without allowances on medical grounds." 14. It may be noted that Rule 26(b) of Part III KSR, as amended w.e.f. 5.11.2009, stipulates that time passed on leave of all kinds without allowances shall not count as qualifying service, except the period of LWA availed under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, on medical certificate, LWA availed under Rule 91A of Part I KSR for study purposes subject to the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR and LWA up to 60 days taken under the proviso to Rule 102 of Part I KSR in continuation of maternity leave. Hence, it can be seen that though, by the mandate of Rule 26(b) of Part III KSR, time passed on leave of all kinds without allowances shall not count as qualifying service, the said restriction will not apply in the case of LWA availed under Rule 88 of Part I KSR on medical certificate. In other words, if what is sought for and granted is LWA under Rule 88 of Part I KSR on medical certificate, then the time spend on such leave reckon for pension. Accordingly, it may be apposite to note that though, Rule 88 of Part I KSR deals with LWA and the same does not explicitly speak about LWA on medical certificate, the provisions contained in Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR and Rule 26(b) of Part III KSR explicitly envisage LWA on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR. So also, it can be seen that once, the leave that is sought for and granted is LWA on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, then the time spent on such leave will be count for increments as well as pension going by the clear mandate of Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR and Rule 26(b) of Part III KSR. 15. Yet another aspect may also have to be dealt with. 15. Yet another aspect may also have to be dealt with. Though, the Director of Health Services and the Accountant General have noted in Anx.A6 dated 25.7.2007 that the provision of Part I KSR under which leave on medical certificate is to be granted to the applicant is Rule 91 and Rule 91A of Part I KSR, it appears that the abovesaid rules as per Rule 91 & Rule 91A of Part I KSR do not have any application to the fact situation of LWA on medical certificate. Rule 91 & Rule 91A of Part I KSR deal with entirely different matters. Therefore, at the outset, it has to be noted that the mere citation of wrong provisions of the Rule in Anx.A6 letter will not be of any significance. The leave that was applied for, by the applicant in terms of Anx.A1 series of applications was Leave Without Allowances on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR. Such a category of LWA with medical certificate is explicitly recognised by the statute in Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR and Rule 26(b) of Part III KSR, etc. So, the leave that was sought for, by the applicant in terms of Anx.A1 series was LWA on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR. The Director of Health Services, after getting the opinion of the Accountant General, has clearly stated the applicant was eligible for leave sought for. The mere citation of wrong provision of Rule in Anx.A6 may not be of any relevance or significance. 16. Hence, when the applicant had specifically sought for LWA on medical certificate under Part I KSR, the sanctioning authority of the State Government has no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of Anx.A5 G.O. dated 22.9.2012 stipulating that the leave that is sanctioned will be LWA otherwise than on medical certificate and consequently, the leave so granted will be appended with further condition that the incumbent will not get increment, higher grade, pension, accumulation of earned leave, etc. Going by the stipulations in the operative portion of Rule 65 of Part I KSR, it is fully within the province of the State Government to have refused the leave sought for by the applicant in terms of Anx.A1 applications for valid grounds. Going by the stipulations in the operative portion of Rule 65 of Part I KSR, it is fully within the province of the State Government to have refused the leave sought for by the applicant in terms of Anx.A1 applications for valid grounds. Otherwise, after hearing the applicant, if the applicant had given her consent that the nature of the leave may be altered as the one as LWA otherwise than on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, then also, the Government could have passed an order in the nature of Anx.A5. Since, neither of those contingencies are applicable in this case, it also appears that the Government has belatedly passed Anx.A5 G.O. dated 22.9.2012, though the application had filed long ago, and such detrimental conditions have been imposed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 17. Even otherwise, the petitioners herein have no case as to why the applicant was disentitled or ineligible for grant of LWA on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR. If at all, there were any such issues, it was for the competent authority of the State Government to issue notice to the applicant, and afford her a hearing and then could have taken a decision in accordance with law. Hence, when the application was filed as early as on 14.11.2004 and thereafter, the Government should have passed orders in the matter without any delay. At any rate, passing such detrimental conditions at the long lapse of time was clearly improper and illegal for all these reasons. Hence, the Tribunal was right in holding that the detrimental conditions in Anx.A5 to the effect that the leave that is granted shall be LWA otherwise than on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR with the further negative consequences flowing there from was clearly illegal inasmuch as, the leave sanctioning authority does not have jurisdiction in terms of the Note appended to Rule 65 of Part I KSR, to alter the nature of the leave applied for, by the incumbent. 18. 18. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. would point out that the operative portion of Rule 65 of Part I KSR clearly mandates that leave cannot be claimed by any incumbent as matter of right, and it is matter only within the province of the discretionary authority, who has discretion to refuse or revoke the leave, and these are all matters which would come within the province of the sanctioning authority, which in the instant case is the State Government. 19. Rule 117 of Part I KSR stipulates that before an officer can be granted leave/extension of leave on medical certificate, he must obtain a certificate in the proforma mentioned there under from such medical authority as the Government, may by general order that prescribe. The proforma of medical certificate is appended under Note I of Rule 117 of Part I KSR clearly stipulates that the possession of medical certificate as prescribed in Rule 117 does not in itself confer upon the officer concerned any right on leave, etc. 20. Rule 118 of Part I KSR grants a discretion to the competent authority who sanctions leave to secure a second medical opinion by requesting the civil surgeon in that regard, etc. Further, Clause '(c)' of Rule 118 of Part I KSR further stipulates that if the authority competent to sanction leave has doubts about the second medical opinion also, he may refer the case to the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services on requisition. Accordingly, the petitioners would place reliance on the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Fr.James Aerthayil & anr. v. N.K.Thomas & Ors. [ 2010 (4) KHC 969 (DB)]. 21. We are not persuaded to accept the abovesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/respondents in the O.A. Further, it is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that there is no specific prayer to to challenge the negative prescriptions in Anx.A5 which was issued as early as on 22.9.2012. [ 2010 (4) KHC 969 (DB)]. 21. We are not persuaded to accept the abovesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/respondents in the O.A. Further, it is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that there is no specific prayer to to challenge the negative prescriptions in Anx.A5 which was issued as early as on 22.9.2012. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. have no case, even in this O.P., that the original applicant was in any way, disentitled for grant of LWA on medical certificate under Rule 88 of Part I KSR, and that she has not satisfied the requirements of submission of medical certificate in terms of Rule 117 of Part I KSR, etc. On the other hand, it appears that the pleadings on record would clearly suggest that the requisite medical certificate was also given. If at all, the applicant was in any manner disentitled or ineligible in terms of of the norms referred to in Rule 117 of Part I KSR, which deals with the proforma of medical certificate or any other aspects, then those matter should have been notifed to the applicant. Further, the sanctioning authority like the State Government will be competent to issue orders for securing a second opinion on medical certificate from a competent doctor. Even, further discretion is conferred to the leave sanctioning authority in terms of Rule 118 of Part I KSR to refer the case of the employee concerned to a medical board, if they entertain any doubt for the genuineness of the claim for the leave sought for on medical ground. None of these procedure has been followed by the petitioners herein in the instant case. On the other hand, what they have done is to unilaterally alter the very substantive nature of the leave sought for, which is clearly prohibited in terms of the statutory Note appended under Rule 65 of Part I KSR. It is also true that, the applicant has not formally sought for the quashment of the impugned prescriptions in Anx.A5 G.O. However, it is seen that a clear declaration is sought for in the O.A. that the leave period is to be regularised as LWA on medical certificate and that the said leave will count for the requisite service benefits as well. 22. 22. When the prescriptions in Anx.A5 G.O. are patently ultra vires the provisions contained in the KSR, then the Tribunal is competent to hold that the impugned prescriptions in Anx.A5 is ultra vires the provisions contained in KSR as above, and hence inoperative and unenforceable in law. So, merely because there is no formal prayer for quashment of the impugned Anx.A5 G.O. to the extent it has made negative prescriptions therein, will not take away the power of the Tribunal to mould the reliefs appropriately taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the interest of justice and equity. Hence, we are not pursuaded to hold that the omission to seek the prayer for quashment of the lengthy prescriptions in Anx.A5 G.O. will not in any manner lead to the situation that the Tribunal has committed any grave illegality or unreasonableness, etc. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the verdict of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, for being interdicted in this proceedings under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is also to be noted that the applicant has already retired from service on 31.3.2014, and the leave that is sought for, is for the years 2004 & 2005, and the Tribunal has rendered the verdict in this case as early as on 17.10.2019. Hence, it is ordered that the competent authority among the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. will immediately take steps to comply with the directions of the Tribunal, at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The counsel for the original applicant may forward copies of this judgment to the petitioners herein for necessary information and immediate action. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (KAT) will stand dismissed.