IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28998 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.C.VALSALA, JIJEESH VIHAR, P.O. KADAMBOORU, ADAKKADU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM REP.BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE (PU) DEPT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28998 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Typist Clerk under the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, though she applied for voluntary retirement as per Ext.P2, the request was accepted as if it was for resignation. She applied for pension and that was rejected. It is stated that she has made Ext.P7 request before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider the said representation. 2. It is seen that when the petitioner made Ext.P2 request, that was accepted by the Corporation as per Ext.P3 dated 30/6/07, as if it was a case of resignation. On that basis, petitioner got relieved from the service and collected Gratuity and Provident Fund. It was thereafter that she made request for pension contending that what she had applied for was for voluntary retirement and not resignation. 3. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that only those employees having 20 years of qualifying service could be allowed voluntary retirement and as the petitioner had only less than 12 years of WPC 28998/09 :2 : qualifying service, the request of the petitioner was accepted as a resignation. Thus her request was considered and accepted as resignation, and except in this proceedings, she had no complaint about the same. 4. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner had ceased to be in employment on resignation, Ext.P5 also says that such cessation will result in forfeiture of past services not qualifying for pension. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp