IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 10215 of 2002(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEORGE SCARIA, S/O. SCARIA,JOE VILLA, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,DEPUTY DIRECTORATE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 10215/2002-N: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/09/99 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EDN. MINISTER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO. PA1/75314/99 DT. 25/11/99 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E4/19476/99 DT. 10/01/2000 FORWARDED BY THE R.3. TO THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A/495/2000 DT. 05/02/2000 FORWARDED BY THE R.4. TO THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. U.P. SCHOOL, KOZHENCHERRY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E4/19476/99 DT. 12/02/2001 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 04/07/2001 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EDN. MINISTER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, N.M. HIGH SCHOOL, KUMBANAD. EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. MUHAMMADEN H.S.S. ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P.7.B: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. H.S.S. KADAYIRUPPU.P.O. EXT.P.7.C: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. H.S., MANCODE. EXT.P.7.D: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. H.S.S. KALANJOOR. EXT.P.7.E: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. U.P.S., KOZHENCHERRY EAST. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 25TH JUNE, 1999. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23/08/2001 IN O.P. 25383/2001. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 4647/01/G. EDN. DT. 17/12/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.10215 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks grant of pensionary benefits based on a scheme formulated by the Government as evident from Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is a paper cutting in which it is stated that the Government had decided to give pension in respect of persons who were hitherto not eligible for pension. Ext.P8 is only a paper cutting. The petitioner is not able to point out any Government order issued in the matter. Further, the petitioner did not retire on superannuation. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that he left the service without permission from the Department. As per the attendance register for the year 1967, he had applied for half pay leave from 2.9.1967 and that it is noted in the attendance register that the petitioner resigned on 23.10.1967 F.N. It is after 37 years thereafter, the petitioner has raised this claim for pension. 2. In the original petition also he does not say that he retired from service. He only says that till 1.9.1967 he was in o.p.10215/02 2 service. He further states in paragraph 2 of the original petition that the Government sanctioned leave in the year 1967 to the petitioner and he had not rejoined in service after going abroad. Therefore, evidently, he absented himself from duty without leave. That being so, he had abandoned the service. There is no provision in the rules enabling a person who has abandoned service to get pension. Therefore, there is no merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.10215/02 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.10215 of 2002-N =============== J U D G M E N T 10th March, 2008 o.p.10215/02 4 In any event, the writ petitions were dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners were not in service on the crucial date, viz., 24.4.1997. In Annexure A5 judgment, the petitioner therein was actually in service as on 24.4.1997. So also, in Annexure A6 judgment, the petitioners were in service as on 24.4.1997. Therefore, the facts of those cases are clearly distinguishable on facts. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the review petitions. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment, their remedy lies in filing writ appeals against the judgment. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.