Dismissed

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2010WP(C)/11452/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought leave to rejoin service or pensionary benefits after allegedly being abroad due to passport issues. The court found his story unbelievable as he failed to approach the Indian Embassy and did not challenge his termination. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking writ of mandamus, declaration of extended leave, and pensionary benefits is dismissed.

G.Surendran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 11452 of 2010(F)

PETITIONER(S): 1

G.SURENDRAN,U.D.CLERK,(UNDER LEAVE WITHOUT ALLOWANCE),O/O.THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION(J)DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶18

==================

¶19

W.P.(C).No.11452 of 2010

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner, while working as a U.D. Clerk in the service of the 2^nd respondent, obtained leave without allowances for accepting employment abroad for five years in the year 1998. According to the petitioner, when the five year period was over, he applied for extension of leave for a further period of five years, which was not sanctioned. But the petitioner could not return to join duty since the petitioner's sponsor in the Gulf country absconded with the passport and other papers of the petitioner. He could come back only on 23.3.2010 and when reported for rejoining duty before the date of his superannuation, he was not allowed to join duty. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

¶23

“i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty on today itself or in the alternate issue an order to the effect that the date of rejoining of the petitioner is on 29.3.2010, on the date on which petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent for rejoining the duty.

¶24

ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the leave extended considering that he was not in a position to rejoin the duty due to the reasons beyond his control.

¶25

iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all the pensionary benefits for which he is legally entitled.”

¶26

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits

¶27

¶28

w.p.c.11452/10

¶29

that the petitioner was terminated from service for unauthorised absence with effect from 3.12.2003 and he has not challenged the same.

¶30

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶31

The petitioner's story is not at all believable. Admittedly,

¶32

the leave was not extended beyond five years. If the petitioner could not come back because his sponsor absconded with his passport and papers, the first thing he could have done and he should have done was to contact the Indian Embassy. He has no case that he has done so. In fact he came back only after seven years. He has no explanation whatsoever as to why it took seven years for him to arrange for travel papers to return to India. As such, the story of the petitioner is totally unbelievable. He has also not challenged the termination from service. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶34

///True copy///

¶35

P.A. to Judge

¶36

w.p.c.11452/10 3

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Surendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Chandran Vs Sanjay Koul

Binoy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T.Sathyanesan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Saji.S.U. Vs Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

T.K. Vanchi Vs Union of India

Mohamed Rafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board