VIDYA V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 and for a consequential direction commanding the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2, waiving the three-month period and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement, treating the application forwarded by the Headmaster as valid and sufficient.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a Lower Primary School Teacher. The earlier Manager passed away on 22/8/2024, and the process of completing the statutory and administrative formalities for the appointment and approval of a new Manager is still underway, and there is no approved Manager for the School. The petitioner has rendered 28 years of service, and she is due to retire on 31/10/2030. However, owing to advanced age and deteriorating physical health, the petitioner found it difficult to effectively discharge her official duties. Thereupon, the petitioner opted to avail imminent voluntary retirement and filed Ext.P2 application in this regard on 22/6/2026. As there was no approved Manager for the School, the Headmaster, being the officer-in-charge of the day-to-day administration of the School, forwarded the petitioner's application to the 3rd respondent for necessary action, as per Ext.P3. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Educational Officer is the pension sanctioning authority of LPST. The petitioner submits that there are no liabilities or monetary dues against the petitioner and also no disciplinary proceedings are pending against her. Therefore, along with Ext.P3 application, the Headmaster forwarded Ext.P4 Non-liability Certificate and also Ext.P5 certificate intimating that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Having far exceeded the minimum qualifying service of 20 years required under the Rules, the petitioner is fully eligible to seek voluntary retirement. Instead of processing the application in accordance with law, the 3rd respondent rejected the same as per Ext.P6 endorsement on the application for voluntary retirement stating that until and unless the request of voluntary retirement is accepted by the Manager, no further action could be taken on the application by the authorities. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the application could be submitted only through the Manager and it cannot be routed through the Headmaster and in the said circumstances, the application seeking voluntary retirement was returned. Further, it is stated that the application for voluntary retirement is to be submitted three months prior to the proposed date for voluntary retirement and in the present case, the application has been filed only one month before the scheduled date of voluntary retirement, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted.