K J ANTONY Vs. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner commenced his career under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short `the Corporation') as Work Assistant on 31.10.1978. THEreafter, he was granted leave without allowances for various periods. After cancelling the unavailed portion of leave he rejoined duty on 8.6.2001. Again he availed leave without allowances with effect from 13.1.2003 and thereafter, rejoined duty on 17.12.2009 as is obvious from Ext.P4. Subsequently, he has submitted Ext.P5 application for voluntary retirement. In Ext.P5 application 22.6.2010 has been shown as the date intended for voluntary retirement. On 18.5.2010 the petitioner has again requested for permission to rejoin duty as per Ext.P6. However, no orders were passed thereon. THEreafter, as per Ext.P7, he again sought permission to retire voluntarily. As per Ext.P7, he requested the authorities to act on Ext.P5 and to permit him to retire voluntarily. For quite some time, no order was passed on Ext.P5. At the same time, no order refusing the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement or permitting him to rejoin duty was passed. Admittedly, till date, no such order was passed. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9. In Ext.P9 it is stated that he has not completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years and therefore, ineligible to retire voluntarily and therefore, his request for voluntary retirement could not be allowed. Ext.P9 is dated 17.8.2010.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner had commenced his service under the Corporation on 31.10.1978. That apart, it is stated therein that he had availed leave without allowances for a total period of 11 years and 18 days. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above facts specifically stated in the counter affidavit would undoubtedly reveal the hollowness in the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service. Based on the same, it is contended that the reason assigned in Ext.P9 that he had not completed 20 years of service is wholly unsustainable. THE learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service and thus ineligible to retire voluntarily, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to rejoin duty. THE petitioner is to attain the age of superannuation only on 31.3.2011. In short, according to the petitioner, either he should be permitted to retire voluntarily or should be permitted to rejoin duty and to retire on attainment of the age of superannuation. THE action on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily and at the same time refusing permission to rejoin duty is nothing but arbitrary and illegal.