IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1228 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SHUKKOOR.M.B,RESIDING AT AS MANZIL OLAKETTIYAMBALAM.P.O,MAVELIKARA,ALAPPUZHA DIST. (FORMERLY SEAMEN,NEENDAKARA PORT). BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PORT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS,DIRECTORATE OF PORTS,THIRUVANANTHAPRAM. 3. THE ASST.DIRECTOR PORTS,KOLLAM. 4. THE PORT OFFICER,NEENDAKARA,KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.1228 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was granted leave without allowances for a period of five years originally, which was extended by a further five years upto 24.4.1986. The petitioner applied for a further extension. The petitioner was not informed of the rejection of his application. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he continued on the employment abroad without rejoining duty. It appears that the petitioner has been dismissed from service with effect from 24.4.1986 for unauthorised absence since the extension of leave was rejected. The petitioner now wants a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for pension considering his past service. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “I. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to sanction pension to the petitioner considering his past service. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.” 2. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that his leave applied for was actually sanctioned. Rules stipulate that the petitioner shall not w.p.c.1228/11 2 proceed on leave unless the leave is granted. After 24.4.1986 the petitioner was never granted any leave. But he chose not to join duty and continued his foreign employment. He did not even care to enquire about the result of his application for leave. Even, according to him, he approached the respondents only in 1996, and he was informed that he was dismissed from service with effect from 24.4.1986. Even then, he did not do anything about it. He has filed Ext.P4 only on 27.10.2010. In any event, in this writ petition what he seeks is a direction to pay pension considering his past service. A dismissed employee is not entitled to retirement benefits as per rules. Therefore, on all counts the claim of the petitioner after 24 years of his dismissal from service cannot be considered. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge