IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21522 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.CHITRA, TC.31/442(1)MADHU MUKH ANAYARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 029. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETRARY TO GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS(E) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 695 011 3. REGISTRAR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR- TRIVANDRUM-695 011. 4. SRI. SOMAN NAIR, REGISTRAR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR-TRIVANDRUM- 695011. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI R2 TO R4 BY SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21522/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 18/3/2004 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/8/2003. P3 COPY OF THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/3/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/1/2007 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 15/3/2007. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/4/08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/6/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/10/2005 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/12/2005 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/1/2007 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPT 1991 TO OCT. 1992. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 4/12/2002 OF THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. R2(B) COPY OF THE OFFICE CIRCULAR, DATED 16/1/2003 OF THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. R2(C) COPY OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER,DATED 19/4/2004 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER. R2(D) COPY OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER, DATED 10/6/2004, SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER. R2(E) COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 21/10/2005, ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. R2(F) COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 23/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK, TRIVANDRUM. sts WP(C)NO.21522/2008 R2(G) COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. R2(H) COPY OF THE MEMO. DATED 4/6/1991 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES TO THE PETITIONER. R2(I) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, DATED 8/3/1994. R2(J) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/5/1994 FROM SOME THE FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS OF C D S R2(K) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1/6/994 FROM SOME OF THE FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS OF CDS. /TREU COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21522 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Junior Stenographer in the service of the Centre for Development Studies, a Government Organisation. She is aggrieved by orders, whereby the petitioner was retired from service, allegedly pursuant to an application dated 27.8.2003 in accordance with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which came into force only with effect from 12.2.2004. According to the petitioner, the petitioner never submitted any application for voluntary retirement and the fourth respondent, who had some illegal designs on the petitioner, used a blank signed paper obtained from the petitioner for fabricating Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement. The petitioner knew about the same only when the petitioner received Ext.P1 dated 18.3.2004. According to the petitioner, her date of superannuation falls on 31.12.2012 and her premature cessation from service on the basis of Ext.P1 is clearly illegal and therefore, Ext.P1 has to be quashed and the petitioner should be allowed to W.P.(C)No.21522/08 2 continue in service, till 31.12.2012 with all monetary benefits for the period during which she was kept out of service pursuant to Ext.P1 . The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction the respondents calling for the records leading to Exts.P1,P2, P6,P7 and P9 and quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to re-instate the petitioner in service forthwith, with full backwages from 18.3.2004 till the date of re-instalment. iii) declare that the petitioner will be entitled to all service benefits from 18.3.2004 onwards including annual increments, promotion in her turn. iv) In the event of re-instalment, direct the 2nd respondent to adjust the terminal benefits already paid, on her retirement on 31.12.2012. v) direct the respondents 1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent for producing concocted document in Ext.P2 and thereby removing the petitioner from service from 18.3.2004” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 4 controverting the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner herself submitted Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement because of ill-health and personal reasons. It is true that at the time of presenting Ext.P2 the scheme for voluntary retirement of the employees of the Centre for Development Studies had not yet been approved. According to respondents 1 and 2, the question of W.P.(C)No.21522/08 3 framing of a Scheme for voluntary retirement was approved by the Committee of Direction in its meeting held on 4.12.2002 as evidenced by Ext.R2(a). Pursuant thereto, a draft scheme was published in the Notice Boards of the Centre. It was decided to implement the Scheme, when the Committee of Direction formally grants approval for the Scheme, as evidenced by Ext.R2(b). In the meantime, those employees, who were interested to apply for the voluntary retirement, were permitted to do the same in writing. It is pursuant to the same, Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement was submitted by the petitioner. That was kept pending till the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was approved and when it was approved, the petitioner's application was considered and allowed in accordance with the Scheme. It is thereafter, the petitioner, having a change of mind, came with the case that she never applied for voluntary retirement. It is pointed out that the petitioner's contentions are not bona fide, insofar as she readily accepted the compensation payable as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in three instalments and she has also applied for settlement of her Provident Fund Account with W.P.(C)No.21522/08 4 the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner's contentions are not correct and cannot be accepted. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the outset I must state that I find little support for the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement was fabricated in a signed paper. Ext.P2, which appears to be a computer print out does not in any way suggest any such fabrication. Everything is in place in Ext.P2 including the signature of the petitioner, which is not easy to fabricate in a computer print out. On the other hand, the case of the respondents are perfectly supported by the documents produced by them. Although on the date of Ext.P2, there was no Scheme, it is clear that the Scheme was decided to be introduced in 2002 December itself and the employees were permitted to make applications also in anticipation of approval for the Scheme by the Committee of Direction of the Centre. The fact that the petitioner readily accepted the compensation paid, pursuant to her voluntary retirement and she also applied for closure of her PF account with the Employees' Provident W.P.(C)No.21522/08 5 Fund Organisation lends credence to the contentions of the respondent. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to countenance the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.21522/08 6