K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.@mdashPetitioner had retired from service on 31-03-2001 as L.P.S.A. While calculating the pensionary benefits service
prior to 1-6-1971 was not reckoned since service put in by her prior to that date was pre resignation period. Petitioner had resigned from the post
of L.P.S.A. on 1-6-1971 and had not rejoined service within the admissible rejoining time and there was a break of 45 days before the next
appointment. As per the service certificate pasted at page 9 of the service book, petitioner had resigned from service on 1-6-1971 from
A.M.L.P.S., Marakkad after completing the nine months and 26 days of service. Therefore service from 7-2-1970 to 1-6-1971 was not
reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said action of the respondent and has approached the Government.
Government rejected the petitioner''s request by Ext.P4 order stating that her pre resignation period could not be considered for calculation of
qualifying service for pension under Rule 29 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this court.
Learned single judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Government and rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this appeal
has been preferred.
2. Senior Counsel Smt. V.P. Seemanthini submitted that appointment of the petitioner from 7-8-1970 to 1-6-1971 was already approved and
therefore there is no justification in not reckoning the approved service for the purpose of granting pension. Further, counsel submitted that in fact
there was no resignation though the Manager had obtained some signed papers from the petitioner and the same were utilised to show that she had
resigned from service. Counsel submitted that those facts were not properly adverted to by the authorities including the learned single Judge.
3. We have perused Ext.P3 service certificate which was issued in a statutory form. It clearly shows that the petitioner had resigned on 1-6-1971.
She had signed the statutory form as well. It is also stated in the said form that the said details have been entered in the service book as well. The
stand of the petitioner is that the noting made in Ext.P3 is not correct and that she had not actually resigned. This Court at this distance of time is
not justified in examining whether the petitioner had resigned on 1-6-1971 or not. No materials have been placed before us to show that in fact
petitioner had not resigned from the post of L.P.S.A. on the said date. On the contrary, Ext.P3 document would show otherwise. Statutory form
was signed by the petitioner as well as the Assistant Educational Officer which would indicate that she had resigned on 1-6-1971. If she had
resigned then the pre resignation period cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension. Rule 29 of Part HI K.S.R. deals with resignation and
dismissals. The said rule is extracted below for easy reference.
29. Resignation and Dismissals. - (a) Resignation of the Public Service or dismissal or removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service.
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment the service in which counts is not resignation from public service.
Note: The break between the two appointments should not exceed the joining time admissible under the service rules plus the public holidays.
4. We may in this connection also refer to Clause (a) of Rule 29 and foot note of the said rule. Person thrown out of service for want of vacancy,
ousted from service, retrenchment etc, will count such service in full for pensionary benefits irrespective of length of service prior to 10-1-1978
(G.O. (P)220/87/Fin dated 10-3-1987). Counsel for the petitioner sought the benefit of the said G.O. as well. First of all no such claim was made
in the writ petition. Even otherwise the said G.O. cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner since she had not established that she was thrown
out of service for want of vacancy. On the other hand facts would indicate that she had resigned on 1-6-1971. Since she had resigned from service
it entails forfeiture of her past service and therefore pre resignation period could not be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits under Rule
29(a). In such circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Government calling interference by this court. Appeal therefore lacks
merits and the same would stand dismissed.