The petitioner is aggrieved with the voluntary retirement effected; of the petitioner as per Ext.P16. The petitioner challenges the voluntary retirement on the ground that the petitioner had, while in service, been proceeded for misconduct and had been imposed with punishment, against which the petitioner had approached before the appropriate forums and in one instance, had even been reinstated by the Labour Court. Due to the enimity of the Management towards the petitioner, the petitioner was forced into filing an application at Ext.P15 and hence the retirement made at Ext.P16 should be set aside, is the contention.
2. Essentially, it is to be noticed that the petitioner admits that the petitioner filed an application under the Voluntary W.P(C). No.34284 of 2004 2 Retirement Scheme of 2001. Ext.P14 was filed on 22.02.2001 and the same was accepted and orders passed on 04.04.2001. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had at any time between the filing of the application and the retirement having been effected, approached the Bank or any other authority with the claim that the application was made under coercion. It is also to be noticed that Ext.P16 was passed in the year 2001 and the above writ petition is filed only in the year 2004.
3. The learned counsel has a further contention that the petitioner, though having 23 years of service for computation of retirement benefits; only 17 years were reckoned. The petitioner is said to have moved an application at Ext.P18 on 06.03.2003, which is allegedly not considered till date. Again it is to be noticed that, Ext.P16 order is passed in 2001 and the petitioner had, without demur, accepted the retirement benefits and after two years, filed Ext.P18 to contend that the entire service period was not reckoned for computation of the retirement benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P19 to contend that the delay was caused only due to the illness of the W.P(C). No.34284 of 2004 3 petitioner. It is to be noticed that, Ext.P19 Certificate is with respect to the period from 17.11.2003 to 13.11.2004 and there is no explanation, why the petitioner did not challenge Ext.P16 passed in the year 2001 for more than two years.
4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit, since the petitioner had voluntarily submitted an application for retirement under the specific scheme formulated by the respondent Bank and had without demur accepted the retirement benefits and gone out of service. The attempt to turn around and challenge the same after a long period of time cannot be entertained.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp