IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 W.A. No. 2076 of 2009 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16397/2008 Dated 02/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONER: --------------------- P.AHAMMED, RTD. H.S.A.(ARABIC), PUTHALATH HOUSE, P.O.KADAVATHUR-670 676. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR & SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2076 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He retired from Government service as High School Assistant (Arabic) on 31.5.1996. While he was working as a lower grade Arabic Teacher, he has resigned from service and his resignation was accepted by the District Educational Officer on 11.7.1972. Later he moved the Government for cancellation of that order and reinstatement in service. The said request was allowed by Ext.P3, which reads as follows: “Government are pleased to accord sanction for the reinstatement of Sri.P.Ahamed, formerly Arabic Pandit, in service subject to the specific condition that on his reinstatement he should be treated as a fresher for purposes of seniority, pay and other service benefits.” The appellant submits that against the conditions in Ext.P3, he W.A. No.2076 of 2009 - 2 - has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the Government, immediately after his retirement from service. The appellant prayed for counting the service rendered by him prior to his resignation also, for granting terminal benefits. This Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the Government to consider his claim. The Government considered the aforementioned claim of the appellant and rejected it by Ext.P6 order dated 20.4.2006 Challenging Ext.P6 order, the appellant has also filed a representation, Ext.P7 before the Government. That was rejected by Ext.P8. The petitioner has produced Ext.P8 during the pendency of the writ petition, which was filed mainly challenging Ext.P6. The learned Single Judge found that after taking advantage of Ext.P3 order, the challenge against the conditions in the said order made now cannot be upheld. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his resignation was accepted as per Ext.P2 by an W.A. No.2076 of 2009 - 3 - incompetent officer. Only the appointing authority, Deputy Director or the Government, could have accepted his resignation. Therefore, the appellant has to be treated as having continued in service without break. But, we notice that, the appellant has failed to challenge Ext.P2 in time. In implementation of Ext.P2, he went out of service. Thereafter, the Government ordered reinstatement subject to certain conditions as per Ext.P3. He has suffered those conditions also. Now, after his retirement, he cannot be permitted to collaterally attack those orders. So, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)