Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, having entered the service of the respondent Corporation in 1982, 1981, 1982 & 1983 respectively, retired from service as Inspectors. The grievance of the petitioners is that the leave without allowance availed by the petitioners without the support of medical certificate for intermittent periods was not counted as qualifying service for pension in the light of Ext.P2 order. In that context, the petitioners are said to have made Exhibit P6 representation before the respondent Corporation. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this Writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 28644/2014 : 2 :
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 P3 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 petitioners have already submitted Exhibit P6 representation, the authorities of the Corporation are willing to consider the said representation in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) No. 28644/2014 : 3 :
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 P6 representation of the petitioners in accordance with law, especially with reference to Exhibit P3 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.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv