CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 06 KL CK 0020

Abdul Gafoor vs State of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 June 2000 · Citation: (2000) 2 KLJ 121

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No. 11277 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 342 words

K.A. Abdul Gafoor

1.

The petitioner was an Arabic Teacher. His continuous service as a full time teacher commenced from 15-1-1964. He had to his credit part time service from 16-9-1963 to 14-1-1964. He proceeded on leave for a period of four years from 1-10-1977 to 30-9-1981 for employment abroad. He did not rejoin duty. According to him, he had applied for extension of leave, but that was not granted. Even without sanction of leave, the petitioner was continuing on leave. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31 -3-1991. The petitioner now submits that he shall be granted all pensionary benefits in respect of the service he had rendered before he proceeded on leave. The petitioner is totally on a misconception with regard to the entitlement of pension. Pension is not granted for the service rendered by an employee. Pension is granted to employees who retire from service after a particular period of service. Pension is eligible to a person who had served the department until he attains the age of superannuation or until the date of voluntary retirement as permissible by law. An incumbent who abandons the service or absents unauthorisedly from service for long is not entitled for pension. Therefore, the petitioner is totally misconceived on the concept of superannuation pension.

2.

Moreover, the petitioner had been on leave from 1-10-1977 onwards. The petitioner had to report for duty on expiry of the leave. Instead of rejoining duty he applied for further extension of leave. As per the rules existed then, the maximum period of leave without allowance for employment abroad was 10 years. The petitioner had applied for further extension of leave beyond that period. He was not eligible for that leave as per the orders then existed. Therefore, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty. The request of the petitioner to grant pension was therefore rightly rejected by the first respondent in Ext.P3. The stand taken by the first respondent in Ext.P3 is perfectly reasonable. There is no merit in this original petition. It is dismissed.