JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The 1 st petitioner availed Leave Without Allowances (LWA) on medical grounds from 27.05.2005 to 26.05.2006, while working as UPST in AUP School, Nhangathur. 2. The 2 nd petitioner while working as UPST and petitioners 3 & 4 while working as LPST in AUP School, Nhangathur availed Leave Without Allowances on medical grounds from 31.05.2005 to 30.05.2006. 3. The 4 th respondent – Assistant Educational Officer sought second medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR from the DMO (ISM) Palakkad, on the Medical Certificates produced by the petitioners for availing Leave Without Allowances. The DMO (ISM) Palakkad intimated the petitioners to be present on 25.08.2005 to have them medically examined as per Ext.P1 dated 01.08.2005. 4. The petitioners were medically examined on 25.08.2005 by a panel of three Doctors at the District Medical Office (ISM) Palakkad. Medical Reports dated 25.08.2005 in respect of each petitioner were forwarded to the Assistant Educational Officer, who in turn transmitted the same to the petitioners through the Headmaster of AUP School, Nhangathur as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5. 5. The 4 th respondent - Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P6 letter dated 22.09.2005 directing the Headmaster to sanction Leave Without Allowances for 120 days to the petitioners relying on Exts.P2 to P5. 6. On 25.09.2005, the petitioners submitted subsequent applications for Leave Without Allowances supported by fresh Medical Certificates. The 1 st petitioner applied for Leave Without Allowances from 25.09.2005 to 26.05.2006. Petitioners 2 to 4 applied for Leave Without Allowances from 25.09.2005 to 30.05.2006. 7. On 12.01.2006, the 4 th respondent – Assistant Educational Officer straight away referred the case of petitioners 1, 3 & 4 to the Director of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine, Thiruvananthapuram, for medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR (Exts.P7, P9 & P10). 8. On 13.01.2006, the Assistant Educational Officer referred the case of the 2 nd petitioner to the Director of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine, Thiruvananthapuram, for medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR (Exts.P7, P9 & P10). 9. No action pursuant to Exts.P7 to P10 has ever been taken. 8. On 13.01.2006, the Assistant Educational Officer referred the case of the 2 nd petitioner to the Director of Health Services, Indian Systems of Medicine, Thiruvananthapuram, for medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR (Exts.P7, P9 & P10). 9. No action pursuant to Exts.P7 to P10 has ever been taken. On receipt of applications on 25.09.2005 for Leave Without Allowances supported by fresh Medical Certificates from the petitioners, the same were straight away referred for placing before the Medical Board for second medical opinion in terms of Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, to the Director of Health Services (ISM) Thiruvananthapuram, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR. 10. There was no proper requisition under Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR to the Director of Health Services (ISM) to place it before the Medical Board. There is no second medical opinion from the DMO (ISM) Palakkad, obtained in terms of Rule 118(a) of Part I KSR on the Medical Certificates submitted on 25.09.2005 along with applications for Leave Without Allowances to constitute a Medical Board to have the petitioners medically examined by the Medical Board as contemplated under Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, contend the petitioners. 11. The principle laid down by this Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala [ 2005 KHC 43 ] applies on all fours to the present case, urged the petitioners. There is no point in relegating the petitioners for a second opinion at this distance of time. Admittedly, the petitioners had joined duty on 05.06.2006 and they continue without any break in service as UPST/LPST in AUP School, Nhangathur. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 13. The petitioners state that the one year Leave Without Allowance applied for by them ought to have been granted and the leave should not have been confined to 120 days. Though there was a direction to the petitioners and as per Exts.P7 to P10 applications were forwarded to the Medical Board invoking Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, the Medical Board did not send any letter or intimation or notice to the petitioners for subjecting them to medical examination. 14. The petitioners were permitted to rejoin duty after one year. Though there was a direction to the petitioners and as per Exts.P7 to P10 applications were forwarded to the Medical Board invoking Rule 118(c) of Part I KSR, the Medical Board did not send any letter or intimation or notice to the petitioners for subjecting them to medical examination. 14. The petitioners were permitted to rejoin duty after one year. However, they are not being disbursed with regular eligible monthly salary due from 05.06.2006 onwards reckoning the service of petitioners 1 and 2 as UPST and the service of petitioners 3 and 4 as LPST. The petitioners are now being paid only the basic wages. 15. Government Pleader contested the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners have taken one year leave in order to aid the Manager of the School to make fraudulent appointments. The Leave Without Allowance applied for by the petitioners under medical grounds was sanctioned only for a period of 120 days. Thereafter, the petitioners were required to undergo medical examination on the basis of fresh Medical Certificate. 16. Be that as it may, it is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners in this regard have culminated in imposition of a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioners have filed applications in order to challenge the punishment orders by amending the writ petition. 17. I find that if the disciplinary proceedings are concluded by imposition of a penalty, then necessarily the respondents will have to regularise the period of Leave Without Allowance applied for by the petitioners appropriately. Presumably, it is due to the fact that the leave period was not regularised in any manner that the petitioners are being paid basic wages only. 18. As regards the challenge of the petitioners against the imposition of penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect, I am of the view that since the petitioners have effective appellate / revisional remedy against imposition of penalty, this Court need not go into that aspect in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider regularisation of the period of Leave Without Allowance / absence of the petitioners appropriately. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month. The petitioners shall be paid eligible salary thereafter along with eligible arrears of salary. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider regularisation of the period of Leave Without Allowance / absence of the petitioners appropriately. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month. The petitioners shall be paid eligible salary thereafter along with eligible arrears of salary. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the penalty imposed on them appropriately.