GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Last Grade Employee in the Sub Court, Thiruvalla as a Process Server. While working as Process Server, it is alleged that his service was illegally terminated on 30-6-1988 when he had attained the age of 55 years. Before 30-6-1988, he had filed a representation to the authorities stating that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years, as per Rules governing the matter. Inspite of the representation, without considering the same in accordance with law, his services were terminated on 30-6-1988. Thereafter, he again filed a representation to the Government. Ultimately, by G.O.(Rt) No.4248/91/Home dated 20-8-1991, the Government ordered to readmit the petitioner in service and was allowed to continue -in service till he attains the age of 60 years by Ext. P2 order. Accordingly, the petitioner was readmitted on condition that the period he was out of service will be treated as duty except pay and allowances which will be limited to the pension already paid. Accordingly, he was readmitted and later retired on superannuation on 30-6-1993.

(2.) The petitioner has also submitted an application for payment of his salary during the period he was kept out of service illegally from 30-6-1988 to 20-8-1991. That application was rejected by Ext. P3 order. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this original petition for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P3 and the portion of Ext. P2 denying full salary and allowances during the period he was kept out of service and also to direct the respondents to pay full salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 30-6-1988 to 20-8-1991.

(3.) This court had occasion to deal with a similar case in O.P.No. 12345/ 91. Ext. P4 is the judgment wherein the court held that the petitioner is entitled to claim salary and allowances during the period when he was illegally kept out of service. The denial of salary and allowances of the petitioner is not at all justifiable as the petitioner's service was illegally terminated by the Government. Since there is illegal termination of service, it has to be found that he is continuing in service. There is no default on the part of the petitioner.