IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 817 of 2010(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33714/2009 Dated 13/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- BAISIL ATTIPPETY @ BASIL A.G., ATTIPPETTY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM.P., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI - 682 509. BY ADV. BAISIL ATTIPPETTY (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY – 683 574, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY – 683 574. BY ADV.SRI.K.P.VIJAYAMOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 817 of 2010 in WP(C)No. 33714 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 Judgment Petitioner who had been working as Section Officer (Higher Grade) in Sree Sankara University of Sanskrit, Kalady sought permission for voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 56, Part III Kerala Service Rules. His request was turned down since, according to the University, the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory “notice period”. 2. Therefore the petitioner filed W.P.No.33714/2009 praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the University to issue orders relieving him from service on voluntary retirement. It was further prayed that all retiral/pensionary benefits be released to him without delay. 3. On an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in the above writ petition this Court passed the following order on January 20, 2010. “ ....... The petitioner is present in person. He undertakes to co- RP.817/2010 : 2 : operate with the proposed enquiry and agrees for recovery of the loss caused, if any, to the University from his DCRG, if the charges are proved. He agrees to execute a bond to the effect. Accordingly, the I.A is disposed of as follows: The petitioner shall be present before the University on 27/1/2010. On that day, the University shall get all required papers signed by the petitioner and relieve him on that day itself. Such relieving shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and the petitioner's own risk.” 4. Later, when the writ petition came up for consideration before me on May 13, 2010, the petitioner who appeared in person submitted that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further. Therefore the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. The above final order passed in the writ petition is sought to be reviewed in this Review Petition. 5. I have heard the petitioner who appears in person and Ms.Bindu, who appears for the University. RP.817/2010 : 3 : 6. The present predicament of the petitioner is that the University refuses to treat him as a “voluntarily retired employee”. The University has made this explicit in the counter affidavit filed in the latest writ petition filed by the petitioner viz., W.P.17134/2010. To quote: “..The legal propensity of Ext.P11 Relieving Order which was subjected to the result of Writ Petition No.33714/2009 of this Hon'ble Court is yet to be decided. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was given voluntary retirement or that he is entitled to the pensionary benefits as if he was given voluntary retirement on competition of 20 years of service.” 7. It may incidentally be mentioned that the University has raised a further contention that petitioner is facing disciplinary action/departmental enquiry on charges of dereliction of duty and defiance of the orders which resulted in a quantified loss of Rs.5,74,750/- to the University. However it is not necessary to go into that area of controversy in this proceeding. 8. The bone of contention appears to be that since the RP.817/2010 : 4 : petitioner has not been given voluntary retirement, there may be some technical or legal snag for him to get the pensionary/retiral benefits. 9. As has been indicated earlier, the prayer in W.P.No.33714/2009 was to direct the University to issue “relieving order to the petitioner immediately on voluntary retirement option exercised by the petitioner”. It is true that the above writ petition was dismissed as “not pressed” without considering the tenability of the contentions raised by the petitioner while seeking voluntary retirement. Even assuming there was any statutory snag or deficiency in the application (Ext.P1) submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement, the University ought to have shown some magnanimity and directed the petitioner to cure the defect. Anyhow in the light of the interim order dated January 20, 2010 the application filed by the petitioner can be treated as one seeking voluntary retirement. 10. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the University has not so far rejected Ext.P1 application submitted by him on October 8, 2009. Petitioner had filed W.P.No.33714/2009 on November 23, 2009 because of the RP.817/2010 : 5 : failure of the University to take expeditious action on Ext.P1. 11. In Venugopal v. State of Kerala and others ((2010) 2 KHC 89 a Division Bench of this Court has held, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999 (4) SCC 293), B.J.Shelat v. State of Gujarat (1978 (2) SCC 202) and Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977 (4) SCC 441) that retirement of the officer who seeks voluntary retirement shall become automatically effective on the date of expiry of the notice period. Petitioner contends that applying the above principle, it could have been deemed that he retired voluntarily from service atleast on the expiry of 3 months from November 21, 2009. Anyhow, I do not propose to sit in judgment over the above issue at this stage since admittedly W.P.No.17134/10 is pending consideration before this Court. 12. However it is made clear that dismissal of W.P.No.33714/09 as “not pressed” need not be taken as a detriment to the legitimate claim, if any, that may be available to the petitioner to get his retiral/pensionary RP.817/2010 : 6 : benefits in accordance with law and the rules and regulations governing the field, subject of course, to the orders that may be passed by this Court in W.P.No.17134/2010. The Review Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.