{"id":4401,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-01T19:35:38","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T14:05:38","slug":"dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 29674 of 2008(G)\n\n\n1. DR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA,. REP. BY THE SECRETARY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :21\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           W.P.(C) Nos.29674\/2008-G & 1411\/2009-R\n                 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010.\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner herein was the Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya<\/p>\n
University of Sanskrit, Kalady.       He was in the service of Government<\/p>\n
Collegiate Department since 1.6.1983 and his appointment was regularised<\/p>\n
vide order dated 2.8.1983 of the Director Collegiate Education. He was<\/p>\n
appointed as Reader      by order dated 29.10.2002 of the Director of<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education. The documents are referred to as produced in W.P.<\/p>\n
(C) No.1411\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
      2. As per Ext.P1 notification dated 7.12.2004 the petitioner was<\/p>\n
appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the above University with effect from<\/p>\n
10.12.2004 and the period was to expire on 9.12.2008.               Ext.P4 is the<\/p>\n
communication dated 4.10.2007 addressed to the Director of Collegiate<\/p>\n
Education intimating that he would like to voluntarily retire from service<\/p>\n
with effect from 9.12.2008 from the University in the present cadre and<\/p>\n
further requesting to take necessary steps to transfer his service in<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education Department and remit the required pension<\/p>\n
contribution to the University.       Ext.P5 is the letter addressed by the<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
Registrar of the University to the Director of Collegiate Education,<\/p>\n
forwarding Ext.P4 further requesting to pass appropriate orders on the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s request.  The Government by Ext.P6 order dated 5.4.2008<\/p>\n
accorded sanction for the remittance of Rs.16,76,127\/- with simple interest<\/p>\n
at the rate of 5% from the date of acquittance to the date of remittance.<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 is the further communication issued by the Director of Collegiate<\/p>\n
Education     according sanction    for   payment of Rs.19,55,481\/-, i.e.<\/p>\n
Rs.16,76,127\/- as pro-rata pension + Rs.2,79,354\/- as interest in respect of<\/p>\n
the petitioner. Sanction was accorded to draw the amount from the District<\/p>\n
Treasury Trivandrum and to pay the amount by way of Demand Draft drawn<\/p>\n
in favour of Finance Officer of the University.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Subsequently the Government by Ext.P9        letter, directed the<\/p>\n
petitioner to approach the Chancellor by forwarding the representation, for<\/p>\n
the orders of the Chancellor who is the appointing authority of the Vice<\/p>\n
Chancellor and accordingly the petitioner forwarded a request as Ext.P10.<\/p>\n
Later, the Chancellor by Ext.P11, along with the Government Letter dated<\/p>\n
29.9.2008, replied to the petitioner directing him to approach the parent<\/p>\n
department for seeking voluntary retirement. Ext.P12 is the said letter<\/p>\n
addressed by the Principal Secretary to Government to the Deputy<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat wherein the Government has taken the<\/p>\n
stand that as the appointment of the petitioner is on deputation, the parent<\/p>\n
department will have to examine the matter.       Even prior to that,    the<\/p>\n
petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29674\/2008<\/p>\n
seeking for a direction to disburse the amounts as sanctioned, within a<\/p>\n
specified time limit. The writ petition was amended later, when Ext.P12<\/p>\n
proceedings were issued wherein the Government took the view that it is<\/p>\n
for the parent department to deal with the matter.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Subsequently, the Government passed an order whereby the order<\/p>\n
sanctioning pro-rata pension was set aside. Ext.P16 produced in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.1411\/2009 is the order passed by the Government cancelling Ext.P6<\/p>\n
order.     After the date 9.12.2008 was over, the Director of Collegiate<\/p>\n
Education issued a communication Ext.P18 dated 2.1.2009 requesting the<\/p>\n
petitioner to report for duty in the Department of Collegiate Education. It<\/p>\n
is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1411\/2009<\/p>\n
seeking for various reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Mainly it is prayed that a declaration may be granted that the<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement exercised by the petitioner has taken effect with effect<\/p>\n
from 9.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6. In W.P.(C) No.1411\/2009 this Court passed an interim order dated<\/p>\n
14.1.2009     staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P18 which<\/p>\n
stands extended until further orders on 27.8.2009.<\/p>\n
      7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt.<\/p>\n
Pleader appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the notice<\/p>\n
given by the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service was well in time.<\/p>\n
The same is under Rule 56 of Part III K.S.R. Going by sub-rule (iv) of<\/p>\n
Rule 56 and the proviso therein, the voluntary retirement of an employee<\/p>\n
shall become effective on the date on which he wishes to retire from service<\/p>\n
as specified in the notice, if no refusal is communicated to him. Herein, as<\/p>\n
the refusal was never communicated, it has become effective from<\/p>\n
9.12.2008. Therefore, the proceedings issued requesting the petitioner to<\/p>\n
rejoin duty, as per Ext.P18 cannot be supported. Reliance is placed on the<\/p>\n
decisions of the Apex Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of<\/p>\n
Assam and others (AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 17) and Tek Chand v. Dile Ram<\/a><\/p>\n
{(2001) 3 SCC 290} and that of a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
Venugopal v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2010 (2) KLT 111). It is also pointed out<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was asked to<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
approach the Chancellor by the Government itself. Subsequently, the said<\/p>\n
stand has been changed by the Government by making it clear that it is for<\/p>\n
the parent department to take action. Ultimately, the application was never<\/p>\n
refused.   It is also pleaded that the orders cancelling the sanction earlier<\/p>\n
given to remit Rs.19,55,581\/- to the University, is issued without notice to<\/p>\n
the petitioner and hence the same is bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
       9. Learned Govt. Pleader mainly contended that as the petitioner was<\/p>\n
on deputation, the Government could have granted permission to voluntarily<\/p>\n
retire, only after the petitioner joins duty. It is therefore pointed out that as<\/p>\n
the Chancellor is not the appointing authority, the parent department alone<\/p>\n
could have taken action in the matter and only after rejoining duty any<\/p>\n
action could have been taken. Therefore, it is pointed out that it was<\/p>\n
obligatory on the part of the petitioner to rejoin duty and the challenge<\/p>\n
against Ext.P18 is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
       10.   Certain subsequent developments, also will be relevant here.<\/p>\n
Going by the counter affidavit, the date of birth of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
3.10.1954.     The date of superannuation is 31.10.2009 and the date of<\/p>\n
retirement is 31.3.2010. Therefore, at this stage the direction to report back<\/p>\n
to duty cannot obviously be implemented.              Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not interested also in reckoning the<\/p>\n
period from 9.12.2008 till 31.3.2010 as service and he sticks to the stand<\/p>\n
that in the light of the refusal to grant permission, he should be deemed to<\/p>\n
have been retired from service on 9.12.2008. Accordingly it is prayed that<\/p>\n
a direction may be issued to disburse the pensionary benefits without further<\/p>\n
delay.\n<\/p>\n
       11. The whole question turns upon the effect of the relevant rules<\/p>\n
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Venugopal’s case (2010<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 111).     The scheme under Rule 56 of Part III K.S.R. shows that a<\/p>\n
person who has got the qualifying service of 20 years, can give notice in<\/p>\n
writing to retire at least three months before the date on which he wishes to<\/p>\n
retire. Going by sub-rule (iv), voluntary retirement shall become effective<\/p>\n
on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make<\/p>\n
appointment to the post. The proviso therein is important here. If the<\/p>\n
authority    to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant<\/p>\n
permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to<\/p>\n
retire specified in the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become<\/p>\n
effective from the date specified in the notice. Sub-rule (v) provides that<\/p>\n
“permission to retire shall be given in all cases except those in which<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings are pending for imposition of a major penalty,” etc.<\/p>\n
etc.\n<\/p>\n
      12.     In the decision of the Apex Court in        Dinesh Chandra<\/p>\n
Sangma’s case (AIR 1978 SC 17), which arose from Rules 56(b) and 56(c)<\/p>\n
of Assam Fundamental Rules, it was held that the sub rule gives a right to<\/p>\n
the Government servant to voluntarily retire from service by giving the<\/p>\n
Government three months notice in writing. In Venugopal’s case (2010<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 111), this Court considered the question in the light of various<\/p>\n
decisions of the Apex Court. It was held that Rule 56(iv) and proviso binds<\/p>\n
the employer and employee. The legal position was laid down thus in<\/p>\n
para 6:\n<\/p>\n
        “The proviso to R.56(iv) comes into operation on the date notified<\/p>\n
        by the employee as the date on which he wishes to retire as<\/p>\n
        specified in the notice under clause (i). The effect of the proviso is<\/p>\n
        that unless the authority competent to make appointment to the post<\/p>\n
        refuses to grant permission for retirement before the date on which<\/p>\n
        the employee wishes to retire as specified in the notice under clause<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in<\/p>\n
        the notice. The said provision is clear and categoric. It is part of<\/p>\n
        the statutory rules made by the State in exercise of authority under<\/p>\n
        the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, germinating from the<\/p>\n
        Constitution.    It is a rule which binds the employer and the<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
         employee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      13. Therefore, going by the said dictum, in the light of the proviso to<\/p>\n
Rule 56(iv), unless the authority competent to make appointment to the post<\/p>\n
refuses to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the<\/p>\n
employee wishes to retire as specified in the notice, the retirement shall<\/p>\n
become effective from the date specified in the notice. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner therefore submitted that the petitioner will be deemed to have<\/p>\n
been retired from service from 9.12.2008. The Bench in the above decision,<\/p>\n
relied upon an earlier decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v.<\/p>\n
S.K. Singhal<\/a> {(1999) 4 SCC 293}. In the said decision, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
examined a similar question in the light of the positive provision similar to<\/p>\n
the one contained in the proviso to Rule 56(iv) and after analysing the<\/p>\n
same, the Division Bench held thus in para 12:\n<\/p>\n
         “So proceeding, S.K. Singhal (supra) was decided holding that<\/p>\n
         when there is a positive provision that where the appointing<\/p>\n
         authority does not refuse to grant the permission before the expiry<\/p>\n
         of the notice period, the retirement shall become effective from the<\/p>\n
         date of expiry of the   said period, it becomes one on a stronger<\/p>\n
         footing than Dinesh Chandra Sangma (supra).          The plea of the<\/p>\n
         State to the contrary was accordingly turned down. Thus, among<\/p>\n
         the rules deducible as the ratio decidendi of S.K.Singhal (supra)<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
        supported by Dinesh Chandra Sangma (supra) and B.J. Shelat<\/p>\n
        (supra) is the principle that when there is a positive provision that<\/p>\n
        the voluntary retirement of an officer shall become effective from<\/p>\n
        the date specified by the officer in his notice in terms of the rules, if<\/p>\n
        the competent authority does not refuse such permission before that<\/p>\n
        date, the retirement of that officer shall become automatically<\/p>\n
        effective from the date of expiry of the notice period. This is, thus,<\/p>\n
        the settled law on the point.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, in the absence of a refusal by the appointing authority before the<\/p>\n
date specified in the notice, the retirement of that officer will be<\/p>\n
automatically effective from the date of expiry of the notice period. The<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in Tek Chand’s case {(2001) 3 SCC 290}<\/p>\n
followed the decision of the Apex Court in S.K. Singhal’s case {(1999) 4<\/p>\n
SCC 293}.\n<\/p>\n
       14. Therefore, herein as the petitioner’s request Ext.P4 which is<\/p>\n
dated 4.10.2007, was well in time and as he requested for permission to<\/p>\n
retire with effect from 9.12.2008, the notice is valid in law.<\/p>\n
       15. Herein, the learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that the petitioner,<\/p>\n
in those letters, actually also wanted to transfer his service under the<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education Department to the University, so as to draw pension<\/p>\n
from the University and therefore they cannot be treated as proper notices<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
under the relevant rules. It is therefore pointed out that as directed in<\/p>\n
Ext.P18, as he was on deputation, he had to join back to the parent<\/p>\n
department and normally the refusal after the period of deputation will<\/p>\n
invite other consequences also.\n<\/p>\n
      16. Herein, two things are important. The contention whether the<\/p>\n
notice Ext.P4 which was followed by Ext.P3, in any way, is defective, is<\/p>\n
the question and while considering it, how the same were understood by the<\/p>\n
Government and the parent department, also is relevant in this context.<\/p>\n
That he was on deputation as Vice Chancellor, is beyond dispute. Even<\/p>\n
though the respondents maintain that the petitioner ought to have joined<\/p>\n
back after the period of deputation is over, so as to consider his applications<\/p>\n
no specific rule or other provisions are relied upon in support of the above<\/p>\n
plea. The petitioner had been maintaining that there is no law which states<\/p>\n
that deputationists cannot seek voluntary retirement.           In the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit also no particular provision is relied upon. The notice Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
addressed to the Director of Collegiate Education who is the appointing<\/p>\n
authority. In para 4 it is clearly stated that “I would like to voluntarily retire<\/p>\n
from the service with effect from 9.12.2008 from this University in the<\/p>\n
present cadre and prefer to claim pensionary benefits from this University.”<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
Clearly, the same is really a notice conveying his intention to voluntarily<\/p>\n
retire from service with effect from 9.12.2008.       No particular form is<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Rules to give notice. True that he had requested to<\/p>\n
transfer his service in the Collegiate Education Department and remit the<\/p>\n
required pension contribution to the University. But that will not defeat the<\/p>\n
purpose of the notice and the same is separable. This was forwarded<\/p>\n
through the Registrar of the University, as evident from the covering letter<\/p>\n
Ext.P5.    The same was acted upon by the Government also as evident<\/p>\n
from Ext.P6 dated 5.4.2008 by the Government according sanction for the<\/p>\n
remittance of Rs.16,76,127\/- with interest. Ext.P7 is the proceedings of the<\/p>\n
Director of Collegiate Education according sanction for payment of an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.19,55, 481\/-.      In the meanwhile, the petitioner by Ext.P3<\/p>\n
D.O. letter dated 11.4.2008 again communicated his intention to voluntarily<\/p>\n
retire, to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department.         It is<\/p>\n
stated that he would like to voluntarily retire from service with effect from<\/p>\n
9.12.2008 as Vice Chancellor of the University and further requested to<\/p>\n
take necessary steps to grant permission to retire from service. There is no<\/p>\n
case for the respondents that the above letter was not received.<\/p>\n
       17.   When things stood as such, the Government felt          that the<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner should approach the Chancellor since according to the<\/p>\n
Government, he is the appointing authority of the Vice Chancellor which<\/p>\n
fact was conveyed by Ext.P9 letter and the petitioner was thus compelled to<\/p>\n
approach the Chancellor as per Ext.P10 solely because of the above letter.<\/p>\n
This was answered by the Chancellor as per Ext.P11, communicating a<\/p>\n
letter dated 29.9.2009 of the Government itself (Ext.P12) wherein the<\/p>\n
Government changed its earlier stand abruptly and conveyed the opinion<\/p>\n
that it is for the parent department to take a decision.<\/p>\n
      18. Even going by Ext.P12, there is no refusal by the Government or<\/p>\n
by the parent department to consider his request. After stating the fact that<\/p>\n
his appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor is on deputation and that he<\/p>\n
has to return to his parent department, in the last portion, it is stated that “in<\/p>\n
the light of the above, the request of Shri K.S. Radhakrishnan will be<\/p>\n
examined by Government as per rules after he rejoins duty in the parent<\/p>\n
Department.” Therefore, this evidences the fact that there was no refusal<\/p>\n
also. Actually, no such refusal was communicated to the petitioner prior to<\/p>\n
9.12.2008. The direction issued by the Director of Collegiate Education to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to rejoin duty is dated 2.1.2009 (Ext.P18) which is after the<\/p>\n
crucial date, i.e. 9.12.2008 chosen by the petitioner to voluntarily retire<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
from service. Therefore, the said letter cannot also be taken as a refusal to<\/p>\n
grant permission to retire from service.\n<\/p>\n
       19. The entire scheme of Rule 56 does not contain any provision that<\/p>\n
a person who is on deputation, will have to report back before submitting<\/p>\n
an application for voluntary retirement. The rules concerning deputation<\/p>\n
contained in Part I K.S.R. also do not prohibit a person who is on<\/p>\n
deputation, to submit an application for voluntary retirement. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the insistence by the respondents that the petitioner should have joined back<\/p>\n
after 9.12.2008 on expiry of his term as Vice Chancellor, is evidently<\/p>\n
unsupportable. The petitioner wanted to retire from service        co-inciding<\/p>\n
with the expiry of the tenure of the term as Vice Chancellor. There was<\/p>\n
nothing in law preventing him to opt for that date. Herein, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner submitted that the meaning of the term “notice” is to give<\/p>\n
information which should be actually communicated and that part was over<\/p>\n
as far as the petitioner is concerned. Evidently, the notice will imply in the<\/p>\n
legal sense communication of a fact to       an authorised person. Herein,<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 is evidently addressed to the appointing authority itself and Ext.P3 is<\/p>\n
also a reminder sent to the Government also. It can therefore be safely held<\/p>\n
that valid notice was served by the petitioner.        Merely because there<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
was a request to transfer various amounts to the University, that does not<\/p>\n
affect the validity of the notice. At the most it can only be said that, that<\/p>\n
part could not have been acted upon by the Government. But herein, that<\/p>\n
was readily accepted by the Government and sanction was accorded which<\/p>\n
was followed by a competent proceedings issued by the Director of<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education.\n<\/p>\n
       20. Herein, one more aspect is relevant. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.29674\/2008 on 6.10.2008, well before the date 9.12.2008. In the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit filed therein, in para 3 while referring to Ext.P4, it is stated<\/p>\n
that “In Ext.P4 representation dated 4.10.2007 addressed to the Director of<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education the petitioner has expressed his willingness to retire<\/p>\n
voluntarily from service on 9.12.2008 only.” In pare 4 also it is stated that<\/p>\n
“the petitioner had approached the Government for permitting him to retire<\/p>\n
voluntarily with effect from 9.12.2008.” Therefore, evidently the averments<\/p>\n
will show that such letters were treated as expressing his willingness to<\/p>\n
retire voluntarily from service with effect from 9.12.2008. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
contrary stand taken now disputing the validity of the notice cannot be<\/p>\n
justified. The contention raised in the counter affidavit therein is that it is<\/p>\n
not the Chancellor to grant permission, but the parent department and<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore he has to return to the parent department and then only the<\/p>\n
authority can grant permission.\n<\/p>\n
      21.   Even after filing of W.P.(C) No.29674\/2008 well before<\/p>\n
9.12.2008, no communication was issued to the petitioner refusing to grant<\/p>\n
him permission to voluntarily retire from service.<\/p>\n
      22. A similar situation was considered by the Apex Court in Tek<\/p>\n
Chand’s case {(2001) 3 SCC 290}. In para 33 similar rules have been<\/p>\n
examined by the Apex Court. It was held thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “It is clear from sub-rule (2) of the Rule that the appointing<\/p>\n
        authority is required to accept the notice of voluntary retirement<\/p>\n
        given under sub-rule (1). It is open to the appointing authority to<\/p>\n
        refuse also on whatever grounds available to it but such refusal has<\/p>\n
        to be before the expiry of the period specified in the notice. The<\/p>\n
        proviso to sub-rule (2) is clear and certain in its terms. If the<\/p>\n
        appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for<\/p>\n
        retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said<\/p>\n
        notice, the retirement sought for becomes effective from the date of<\/p>\n
        expiry of the said period.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The same is the position herein.\n<\/p>\n
      23. In the decision of the Apex Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma’s<\/p>\n
case (AIR 1978 SC 17), while examining the effect of F.R. 56(c), it was<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
held that “while the Government reserves its right to compulsorily retire a<\/p>\n
Government servant, even against his wish, there is a corresponding right<\/p>\n
of the Government servant under F.R. 56(c) to voluntarily retire from<\/p>\n
service   by giving the Government three months’ notice in writing. ”<\/p>\n
Therefore, the legal effect of the notice is therefore clear and the notice will<\/p>\n
become effective if there is no refusal by the appointing authority before the<\/p>\n
date on which the employee wishes to retire.\n<\/p>\n
      24. In that view of the matter, the petitioner will be deemed to have<\/p>\n
retired from service with effect from 9.12.2008 itself. The subsequent<\/p>\n
events also will show that he has already attained the age of superannuation<\/p>\n
and would have retired from service actually on 31.3.2010. Therefore, at<\/p>\n
any rate, Ext.P18 cannot be implemented at this distance of time.<\/p>\n
      25. For all these reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. There will<\/p>\n
be a declaration that the petitioner will be deemed to have been retired from<\/p>\n
service with effect from 9.12.2008 as the voluntary retirement exercised by<\/p>\n
the petitioner has become effective from that date. Ext.P18 is therefore<\/p>\n
quashed. There will be a further direction to the respondents to sanction<\/p>\n
pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner and appropriate<\/p>\n
orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
wpc 29674\/2008 &
\n1411\/2009                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
of a copy of this judgment and the retirement benefits will be disbursed<\/p>\n
accordingly. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 29674 of 2008(G) 1. DR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS … Petitioner Vs 1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION … Respondent 2. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 3. STATE OF KERALA,. REP. BY THE SECRETARY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":3516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010","name":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 ... vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T14:05:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-s-radhakrishnan-aged-53-vs-director-of-collegiate-education-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.K.S.Radhakrishnan Aged 53 … vs Director Of Collegiate Education on 21 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}