P. Ahammed vs State of Kerala

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The main challenge in the writ petition is against Exhibit P6 order passed by the Government by which it was found that the service of the petitioner from 01.08.1973 only has to be calculated for pension and other service benefits and not any prior service as claimed by him.

The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.1996. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Grade Arabic Teacher and was promoted as per Exhibit P1 order. Later he resigned from service. The resignation was accepted by the District Educational Officer as per Exhibit P2 dated 11.07.1972. Thereafter, he submitted a representation before the Government seeking re-employment. By Exhibit P3, the said request was accepted on the specific condition that on his reinstatement he should be treated as a fresher for purposes of seniority, pay and other service benefits.

The petitioner was granted leave without allowance from 16.06.1981 and he attained superannuation on 31.05.1996. Seeking for grant of retirement benefits, he filed Exhibit P4 representation. This Court directed the Government to consider the matter and accordingly, Exhibit P6 was passed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acceptance of resignation by the District Educational Officer was not proper and he should be deemed to have been continued in service as resignation has no effect. It is clear from Exhibit P3 that the Government has also treated that the petitioner has resigned from service and accordingly sanction was awarded for reinstatement in service with a specific condition that he should be treated as a fresh hand. Therefore, at this distance of time, the petitioner cannot contend for the position that acceptance of resignation is bad.

In Exhibit P6, the details regarding service rendered by the petitioner have been stated. It was held that it was only on humanitarian consideration that he was granted a reinstatement and the condition therein squarely binds the petitioner. The petitioner had not challenged the above condition at any point of time.

In the light of the above, as the petitioner has resigned from service, the Government was of the view that the service prior to his resignation cannot be reckoned for any purpose. Accordingly, it was held that the service of the petitioner prior to 01.08.1973 cannot be calculated for pension and other service benefits. The view taken by the Government cannot be said to be incorrect. It is clear that the petitioner had submitted a resignation which fact is evident from his own admission, and the District Educational Officer has passed Exhibit P2 order accepting the resignation. Since the Government has ordered reinstatement in service, it is clear that the acceptance of resignation had taken effect. Therefore, the contention now raised after a long time that the acceptance of resignation is bad cannot be a countenance at all.

In that view of the matter, service prior to 01.08.1973 cannot be counted for pension and other service benefits. Apart from that, there is a period of 15 years during which he was on Leave Without Allowance and the said period also is not liable to be counted.

For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.