Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, having entered the service of the respondent Corporation on 13.12.1980, retired from service on 30.11.2012 as Inspector. Initially, the petitioner has been paid his service benefits taking into account 21 years of his service as the basis. According to the petitioner, he has 32 years of qualifying service, but the Corporation has taken only 21 years on account, thereby depriving him the benefit of substantive period of service. In that context, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibit P3 W.P.(c) No. 28500 of 2014 2 representation before the respondent Corporation. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on 10.06.2010 the Corporation issued proceedings to the effect that once an employee avails himself of leave without allowance, the said period could not be reckoned as qualifying service for the pensionery benefits. According to the learned counsel, any leave without allowance prior to 10.06.2010 should be counted as qualifying service inasmuch as the proceedings issued by the Corporation have no retrospectivity. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibit P2 judgment of this Court.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has however, contended that each case with regard to reckoning the qualifying service on the basis of leave without allowance is required to be examined independently to see whether the said employee availed himself of the leave either prior or subsequent to 10.06.2010. In any event, she has submitted that since the W.P.(c) No. 28500 of 2014 3 petitioner has already submitted Exhibit P3 representation, the authorities of the Corporation would be willing to consider the said representation in accordance with law.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider Exhibit P3 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, especially with reference to Exhibit P2 judgment of this Court, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-