Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE26H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20144TH ASWINA, 1936 OP(KAT).No. 244 of 2014 (Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN OA23292012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED28.13 PETITIONER: ------------------ K. NARAYANANKUTTY, AGED56YEARS S/O.C.NARAYANAN NAIR, KANNANGATHU HOUSE, POTTOR P.O. THRISSUR, RETIRED U.D.CLERK (HIGHER GRADE) OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATEOF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATGE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR-680001. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.R.RAJESH THIS OP KERALAADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2609-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 244 of 2014 (Z) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF ORDER
DATED28/2013 IN O.A.NO.2329 OF 2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ATTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF ORDER
DATED1312/2013 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.25/2013. P3: COPY OF O.A.NO.2329 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALAADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE2D RESPONDENT IN THE SAID OA DATED112/2013. P5: COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE OA DATED297/2013. P6: COPY OF REVIEW APPLICATION NO.25/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE dsn ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT)No.244 OF2014-------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE26h DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk(Higher Grade) under the respondents. On 12.10.2009, he applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 10.2.2010. By Annexure A1 to the O.A., the Deputy Director forwarded the application to the Director of Collegiate Education. Since a decision on his application was not forthcoming, he submitted Annexure A2 request dated 15.1.2010 to the Director, again requesting that he be allowed voluntary retirement with effect from 10.2.2010. There was no response to either of the applications. But, however on 10.2.2010, Annexure A3 communication was issued by the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioner to continue in service until a decision on his application is taken by the Director. Accordingly, he continued in service and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011.
2. Still, later, he filed O.A.No.2329/2012 seeking a declaration that in view of the proviso to Rule 56(iv) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, he has retired voluntarily from service on O.P.(KAT)No.244/14 -2- 10.2.2010. He also sought a direction to the respondents to disburse his terminal benefits on that basis. By Exhibit P1 order dated 2.8.2013, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A., directing that he be treated as having retired from service on 10.2.2010. Reading of the order shows that the said order was passed with a consequential direction accepting the submission of the petitioner that he had not received any salary for the service beyond 10.2.2010. However, the Tribunal had also mentioned that if the petitioner had received salary for the service after 10.2.2010, the same shall be recovered.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed R.A.No.25/2013 seeking review of Exhibit P1 order pointing out that his statement that he was not paid salary for the period beyond 10.2.2010 was incorrect and that he was paid salary for the period till 31.3.2011, the date on which he was superannuated. On that basis, he sought modification of the direction enabling the respondents to recover the payments during the period 10.2.2010 to 31.3.2011. However, since the Tribunal had already held that he shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from 10.2.2010 as claimed by him, the Tribunal ordered that the terminal benefits shall be paid O.P.(KAT)No.244/14 -3- only after the recovery is effected, as already ordered by it. It is in these circumstances, this Original Petition is filed.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. Even now, the petitioner insists that he should be deemed to have retired voluntarily on 10.2.2010. He also wants his terminal benefits from that date onwards. Once the petitioner is asserting for the aforesaid entitlement, he cannot at the same time say that he should also be paid salary and other allowances for any period beyond 10.2.2010. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal that he cannot get double benefit for the period after 10.2.2010 is perfect and legal. We do not see any reason to interfere either with Exhibit P1 or P2 orders. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE SD/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE dsn