IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.849 of 2006 A.Indirani .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Correspondent Hindu Aided Primary School, Samiarpatty Post, Ambathurai (Via) Gandhigram, Dindigul District. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner on her 27 ½ years of qualifying service. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rengaramanujam For Respondents : Mr.D.Srinivasan (AGP) (R1 to R3) Mr.S.Kadarkarai (R4) O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner, based on her qualifying service of more than twenty years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner has stated that she was appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school, on 28.4.1967. She was promoted, as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year, 1977. While so, due to certain acute domestic problem and due to her physical ailments, she was mentally depressed. In such circumstances, she had proceeded on medical leave, from 20.10.1994. Therefore, she had sent a resignation letter though she had intended to take only voluntary retirement from service. 3. The petitioner had further stated that she had been on leave for a period of one year, from 20.10.1994 to 19.10.1995. Since, she had not rejoined in duty, on completion of the leave, she was terminated from service. In the letter, dated 11.2.2005, sent by the fourth respondent school, it has been stated that the petitioner had left the service, on voluntary retirement. In the said letter, nothing has been said about the termination of the petitioner from service. Since there was no reply from the fourth respondent school, for the letter sent by the petitioner for resignation from service, even though it was intended to be voluntary retirement from service, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.12608 of 1998, to direct the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the petitioner's letter, dated 4.11.1994. By an order, dated 27.8.1998, the respondents therein had been directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. Even thereafter, the application of the petitioner had not been disposed of, as directed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the fourth respondent school, on 20.1.2005, requesting the management of the school to sanction the petitioner's pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits due to her, as she had completed 27 ½ years of qualifying service in the fourth respondent school. 5. It has been further stated that the respondent school had sent a reply letter, dated 11.2.2005, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to get her retirement benefits, as she had left the service on her own and that she had also sent a letter of resignation. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had proceeded on leave, without pay, from 20.10.1994 to 19.10.1995. Thereafter, she had neither reported for duty, nor had she extended her leave, with the permission of the management of the fourth respondent school. While so, she had sent a letter of resignation, on 31.10.1994, requesting that she should be relieved from her duties. On receipt of the resignation letter from the petitioner, the fourth respondent school had sent a registered letter addressed to the petitioner, on 23.11.1994. The petitioner had been requested to sign three copies of the request in the prescribed format and to come to the school to sign the attendance register, so that her request for resignation could be forwarded to the competent authority. 7. It has been further stated that if the petitioner had wanted to go on voluntary retirement she should have returned to duty after the expiry of her leave, on 19.10.1995 and thereafter, she should have sent three months prior notice, requesting to go on voluntary retirement. Only after the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement, by the fourth respondent school, in writing, the voluntary retirement would take effect. Further, since the letters issued to the petitioner had returned unserved there was no way by which the management of the fourth respondent school could contact the petitioner. The registered letter sent to the petitioner had also been returned with the endorsement `No such addressee'. Thereafter, there was no correspondence from the petitioner. All the efforts taken by the management of the fourth respondent school, to trace the petitioner, had proved to be futile. Since, the petitioner had sent a letter of resignation from service and as she had not turned up, thereafter, in spite of the letters sent by the management of the fourth respondent school, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits, as claimed by her. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by her, in the present writ petition. Since, the petitioner had not returned to duty, after the expiry of her leave period, from 20.10.1994 to 19.10.1995 and as she had sent a letter of resignation, dated 31.10.1994, to the fourth respondent school, it is not open to her to claim pensionary and other benefits, as prayed for in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present writ petition. Further, she had not contacted the management of the fourth respondent school, in spite of the letters sent to her by the said management, to her last known address. Thereafter, after a delay of many years, the petitioner has made the request to the management of the fourth respondent school, for pensionary and other benefits. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate, SR 12942 W.P.No.849 of 2006 RS (CO) RH (8.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/