M. SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been working as a charge hand under the 2nd respondent - Travancore Titanium Products. In the year 1991 he submitted an application for voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement was granted as per Ext.P3(a) w.e.f 7.6.1991 based on his application Ext.P2. The petitioner claims that he had filed a number of complaints and cases against his co-workers and superiors under the 2nd respondent fighting against corruption which caused animosity from all corners and he was being trapped in false cases and harassed. He had already filed several cases before the Kerala Public Mens Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Commission which culminated in Exts.P4 and P4(a) judgments. He had also approached the Lok Adalat as well as this Court several times.

(2.) After he received the terminal benefits on the basis of voluntary retirement, he approached the respondents several times seeking reappointment. According to him, the respondents allowed voluntary retirement without waiting for the notice period, on a haste. As per order issued by the Government on 18.11.2003, he was allowed to rejoin the 1st respondent company purely on contract basis upto the date of his superannuation which was due on 28.2006, as per Ext.P5 order, on 27.10.2005. On attaining the age of superannuation he claimed retirement benefits reckoning his entire service and submitted a series of representations. As per Ext.P6 order the Government rejected his claim saying that his reappointment itself was granted on compassionate grounds on condition that he will not be entitled to any other benefits as stated in Ext.P5 order.

(3.) The petitioner claimed that he received the terminal benefits in order to conduct the cases he filed before the Lok Adalat. In this writ petition the petitioner claims service benefits due to him from 7.6.1991 to 1.12.2003 and for a direction to the respondents to correct the dates in his service records so as to enable continuity of service. It is seen that as per Ext.P3A order issued on 22.06.1991, the 2nd respondent granted permission to the petitioner to retire from service under the voluntary retirement scheme w.e.f 7.6.1991 specifically stating that the petitioner would not have any claim for reemployment under any circumstances while directing him to collect the dues from the Accounts Department of the company. Ext.P2 is the application which the petitioner submitted requesting for voluntary retirement with effect from 7.6.1991 under Ext.P3 scheme. Thereafter when the Government issued Ext.P5 order on the basis of his representation for reappointment it was made clear that the petitioner has no legally enforceable right for obtaining any reappointment in the company. It was stated that reappointment was given considering the fact that the petitioner was due to retire from service on superannuation on 28.2.2006. The said reappointment was purely on contract basis as a special case on humanitarian consideration and on condition that he should be willing to work on a consolidated salary which would be fixed as his last salary and he shall not be eligible for any other allowance and benefits. After accepting the said appointment as per Ext.P5, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he is entitled to retirement benefits reckoning the service rendered by him from 1991 onwards. While passing Ext.P5 order the Government has not issued any order for reckoning the service from 1991 onwards. Voluntary retirement granted to him was also not found to suffer from any illegality. Moreover, the request for the same was already rejected by the Government in Ext.P8 order after considering all the circumstances under which he was granted voluntary retirement, he received the terminal benefits and also the subsequent reappointment given to him on conditions.