ANGELUS Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 9. 8. 2005 and to direct the respondents to pay pension and all attendant benefits with effect from his date of retirement i. e. , 5. 6. 1988 together with interest at 24% p. a. for the delay in payment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner joined duty as headmaster in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Ponnalikootai on 17. 8. 1964 and on 25. 2. 1988, due to his ill-health, he gave a letter seeking voluntary retirement, giving three months statutory notice. The said letter informing voluntary retirement was issued to the second respondent on 26. 2. 1988 and the postal acknowledgment in this regard is also filed in the typed set of papers. Petitioner states that no order either accepting or rejecting the voluntary retirement was passed by the second respondent. After the expiry of petitioner''s medical leave on 31. 5. 1988, on the advise of the department, petitioner joined duty on 1. 6. 1988 and voluntarily relieved himself on 5. 6. 1988 after the three months notice period.

(3.) PETITIONER further states that he was not given the retirement benefits on the ground that the department misplaced his service register and the same is not traceable and the same was the stand taken by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 15. 5. 1996. The third respondent, thereafter prepared a duplicate service register and forwarded the same on 29. 7. 1999 to the second respondent for sanction of the petitioner''s pension. Second respondent also advised the third respondent to process petitioner''s pension proposal based on the duplicate service register. The 4th respondent by proceeding dated 29. 9. 2001 addressed to the third respondent and returned petitioner''s pension proposal with certain remarks. The second respondent failed to furnish the remarks as required by the 4th respondent. Petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent on 13. 2. 2002 and also to the second respondent on 2. 2. 2004 and requested to settle his retirement benefits and pension. The said representation having not been considered, he filed W. P. No. 11167 of 2004 before this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the petitioner''s pensionary benefits from 5. 6. 1988 and this Court admitted the writ petition on 23. 4. 2004 and as no counter affidavit was filed, on 12. 7. 2005, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passed the following order,