IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 24223 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SUNDARAN.P S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, CASH PEON, BACK OFFICE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, K.P.K.MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. ZONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HRD, ZONAL OFFICE,KOZHIKODE. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BACK OFFICE D NO.4347, K.P.K.MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24223 of 2009(W) APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: Copy of letter dated 28.5.09 forwarded to the 1st respondent for voluntary retirement. Ext.P2: Copy of revocation letter dated 11.6.2009. Ext.P3: Copy of mercy petition dated 3.7.2009 /True copy/ P.A. To Judge C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 24223 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a cash peon under the Punjab National Bank. He joined its service on 9.12.1985 and he could have been continued in its service up to 30.4.2025. Assigning the reason on physical illness, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application for voluntary retirement on 28.5.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently, he had submitted Ext.P2 dated 11.6.2009 for withdrawing Ext.P1 application. Soon Ext.P3 mercy petition was also submitted on 3.7.2009. In fact, he had submitted Ext.P3 on coming to know that Ext.P1 application was accepted on 17.6.2009. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed raising grievance against the inaction even after the receipt of Exts.P2 and P3. The writ petition was filed on 21.8.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner received Ext.P4 communication dated 28.8.2009 from the second respondent intimating him that he was relieved off his duties of the Bank with effect from 28.8.2009. In fact, after the submission of WPC.24223/2009 : 2 : Ext.P1, the petitioner had continued in the service of the Bank till 28.8.2009, the day of which he was relieved off his duties as per Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents should not have acted upon Ext.P1 whilst should have accepted Ext.P2 and permitted him to continue in service. 2. The respondents have filed a statement and an additional statement in this writ petition. In the statement, the respondents have strongly refuted the acceptance of Ext.P2 from the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that on 16.6.2009, the mandatory counselling was conducted for the petitioner and on that day itself, Ext.P1 was accepted. In tune with voluntary retirement scheme, the petitioner could have been relieved only on the expiry of ninety days and that was why on 28.8.2009 the petitioner was relieved off his duties. In fact, the additional statement was filed pursuant to a direction of this court on 29.9.2009. Ext.R1 (a) is the letter dated 16.6.2009 recommending for acceptance of the voluntary retirement application submitted by the petitioner sent by the Chief Manager of the concerned bank to the Chief Manager of HRD Circle. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of of the dak receipt and disposal register of the concerned branch WPC.24223/2009 : 3 : of the bank pertaining to the period from 10.6.2009 to 12.6.2009. In the said circumstances, the contention of the respondent is that Ext.P2 cannot be construed as a genuine document and in fact, they did not receive Ext.P2. That apart, it is their contention that if the petitioner had actually submitted Ext.P2 on 11.6.2009, there was no necessity for the petitioner to participate in the counselling or at any rate, he could have divulged that fact on that day. 3. A scanning of the contentions of the petitioner would reveal that his case is that he had sent Ext.P2 by post and the same was actually received in the office of the concerned branch of the bank on 13.6.2009. According to the petitioner the factum that he had submitted the said letter dated 11.6.2009 is evident from Ext.P3 itself. Ext.R1(b) is the dak receipt and the disposal register pertaining to the period from 10.6.2009 to 12.6.2009 and therefore, according to him, there is nothing on record which would go against his contention that Ext.P2 had reached in the office of the concerned branch of the bank on 13.6.2009. Ext.R1(b) is a recommendation letter forwarded by the Chief Manager of the concerned branch to the chief Manager, HRO Circle Office for the purpose of acceptance of the voluntary retirement application WPC.24223/2009 : 4 : submitted by the petitioner. Of course, Ext.R1(a) would show that on that day itself, it was accepted. At the same time, respondents did not dispute the receipt of Ext.P3 dated 2.7.2009. Admittedly, the order relieving the petitioner was passed only on 28.8.2009 and that much prior to that date they received Ext.P3. Hence, the respondents could have considered the request made as per Ext.P3 even in case, they did not receive Ext.P2. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner belongs to the lowest strata of service, the respondents could have and would have taken such a course of action. 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had continued in service even after the submission of Ext.P1 and it was while in continuing in service that he had submitted Ext.P3 dated 3.7.2009 and further that he had continued in service till 28.8.2009. The fact that even after Ext.R1(a) the petitioner continued in service and was admittedly, relieved off duties only on 28.8.2009 would suggest that Ext.P1 took its actual effect only on 28.8.2009. Going by the age of retirement of the sub-staff under the bank, the petitioner could have continued in service till 30.4.2025. I am of the considered view that in the said circumstances, instead of WPC.24223/2009 : 5 : sticking into technicalities, humanly approach can be adopted for the purpose of considering Ext.P3 which was admittedly received by the respondents prior to the passing of Ext.P4. Evidently, the respondents did not look into the request made by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 before passing Ext.P4. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the decision taken by the respondents requires consideration by looking into Ext.P3. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 and to consider the request of the petitioner made as per Ext.P3 and to take a decision fresh. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge