IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 616 of 2007(B) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.13305/2001 DTD. 16/10/2006. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- C.H. GOVINDAN, 29/818, “MURALI”, PALAPRAMBA, P.O. KOTTOOLI, CALICUT-16. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No. 616 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 19th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The respondents were the respondents in the Original Petition. The appellant was a Head Nurse working under the respondents. He was granted leave without allowance for five years from 1975 to 1980 to take up employment abroad. On expiry of the leave, he did not return. Therefore, Ext.P4, memo of charges, was served on him. Thereupon, he reported for duty and he was allowed to rejoin duty on 21.3.1983. Thereafter, he remained unauthorisedly absent from 25.3.1983. So, again disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorised absence and Ext.P6 memo of charges was served on him. He submitted Ext.P7 reply. After following the due procedure, by Ext.P8, the appointing authority removed him from service with effect from 25.3.1983, the date from which he was unauthorisedly absent. Later, the petitioner moved for granting him pension for the service rendered by him from W.A. No.616/2007 - 2 - 1960 to 1975. That petition was rejected by the Government by Ext.P13. Challenging Exts.P8 and P13, the Writ Petition was filed. But, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. The factum of unauthorised absence is not disputed by the appellant. After the initial five years period, he was not granted further leave. Though the earlier spell of absence from 1982 to 1983 may be taken as condoned on his being permitted to join duty on 21.3.1983, there was no such order regarding the absence from 25.3.1983. Therefore, in view of the admitted unauthorised absence, after following the due procedure, the action was taken. So, we find nothing illegal or irregular about Ext.P8. A dismissed employee is not entitled to get pension. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about Ext.P13. But, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ext.P14 order passed in favour of Smt. N.Chandramathi in similar circumstances. In her case, the Government passed an order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. As a result, she is entitled to get pension. The appellant prays, he may be given similar W.A. No.616/2007 - 3 - treatment. The said Smt.N.Chandramathi is none other than the wife of the appellant. May be she being a lady, the Government took a liberal view. We cannot say that in all such cases the Government should take the very same view. Therefore, the said contention also cannot be accepted. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps