IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 68 of 2008(N) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21133/2007 Dated 22/11/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------ N.G. SUSEELA BAI, AGED 66 YEARS, (FORMERLY ACCOUNTANT, CHATHURTHIAKARI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.1247), W/O.M.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, SHYAM NIVAS, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 009. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ---------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, TC.NO.27/156,157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE CHATHURTHIAKARI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1247, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHATHURTHIAKARI P.O., PIN-688 511, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV.SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R1 ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.PUSHPALATHA FOR R2, R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------- R.P.No.68 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 ORDER This review petition by the writ petitioner is filed on the premise that the judgment sought to be reviewed issued on 22/11/2007 should not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming her alleged entitlement to superannuation pension. 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by her employer, a Co-operative Society. Some time in 1997, she applied to the employer for permission to voluntary retirement from service. While the disciplinary proceedings were pending, the employer decided to accept her request by permitting her to voluntarily retire with effect from 1993, to wit, from the date of suspension. Matters rested there. Thereafter the pension board refused to grant her any pension on the basis of the voluntary retirement on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against her were not closed. 3. While issuing the judgment sought to be reviewed, it RP.No.68/08 2 was held that since disciplinary proceedings were not closed, the Pension Board could not be found fault with having refused pension. Obviously, as on the date with effect from which the petitioner was permitted to voluntarily retire, the disciplinary proceedings were continuing. 4. In the course of the decision making process resulted in the judgment sought to be reviewed, it was also necessary to consider the legality of the employer granting voluntary retirement retrospectively from 1993. Rightly or wrongly, that found the seal for approval of this Court in the opening of para 3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. If voluntary retirement is a factum accepted and recognised by this court in the impugned judgment, it goes without saying that the employee ( writ petitioner) would not get an opportunity to further retire on superannuation, at a later point of time. Therefore though the learned senior counsel for the review petitioner confined the submission at the time of hearing today, to a request that the judgment sought to be reviewed may not stand in the way of the petitioner's claim for superannuation pension being considered by the Pension Board, I am afraid that such direction would not be RP.No.68/08 3 permissible in the light of the findings in the judgment particularly in paragraph 3 thereof. 5. I am satisfied that no error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment is made out and, still further, no other grounds are also established to review the judgment dated 22/11/2007. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sv.