IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31377 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SUBRAMANYA SHARMA VATHALLOOR ILLAM, THOTTAKONAM, MUDIYOORKONAM PO., PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.R.RAJESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA. 5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ARANMULA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHEWE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31377/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the BKV NSS Upper Primary School and he commenced service on 26/2/1959. It is stated that he resigned on 13.3.1969 and to join as a Lecturer in the college coming under the educational agency of NSS. According to him he was relieved after having completed more than 10 years of service. It is also stated that in the meanwhile there was a change in the qualification as applicable to the Lecturer and as a result of which he could not even join to that post. 2. Long thereafter he claimed pension for his UPSA service and that was rejected by order dated 3.4.1992. The said order was confirmed by the Government also by its order dated 25.1.1994. Those orders were challenged WP(c).No.31377/08 2 before this court in O.P.No.8904/2004, resulting in Ext.P1 judgment. In paragraph 2 of that judgment, this court found that, going by the rules there is nothing illegal in the stand taken by the respondents and that as the rule stands the petitioner is not entitled to get the pensionery benefits. Proceeding further it was further held that only by relaxing the rules the benefits can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the Government for relaxation. Thereupon Ext.P2 representation was filed and that was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 21.1.2006. It is challenging Ext.P3 order that this writ petition has been filed. It would appear from Ext.P3 that the cessation of the service of the petitioner was on termination and not resignation and it was therefore he has not been held ineligible for the benefit under Rule 5 of Part III KSR. Though the writ petition can be said as highly belated since the challenge now raised is against Ext.P3 dated 21.1.2006, WP(c).No.31377/08 3 still having regard to the fact that the claim involved is for terminal benefits, the delay could be condoned. Despite this in my view of the fact that the petitioner was terminated I am not persuaded to a different view. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.31377/08 4