1. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Professor (Dairy Science) of Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayinikkara, Thrissur, seeks to quash Exts.P8 and P17 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for grant of compassionate allowance as provided under Rule 5 Part III KSR with effect from 01.03.2015.

2. The petitioner states that she worked as Assistant Professor (Dairy Science) since 02.12.1988. She was due to retire on 13.01.2025. In the year 2000, the petitioner was afflicted with the mental illness Schizophrenia. The illness affected the duties assigned to the petitioner. Her family advised her to join her spouse abroad for better treatment. The petitioner therefore went to United Kingdom.

3. Leave Without Allowance (LWA) was granted to the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2005 to 28.02.2015. The petitioner sought extension of leave for a further period from 01.03.2015. The 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P2 communication dated 17.05.2019, rejected the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to rejoin duty. The petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia even at that time. The petitioner therefore applied for retirement from service. The application was, however, rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3.

4. The 2nd respondent surprisingly issued Ext.P4 memo of charges and statement of allegations. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply seeking to consider the request for voluntary retirement on health grounds with invalid pensionary benefits. The 2nd respondent, however, constituted an enquiry committee. The enquiry committee conducted a Zoom meeting with the petitioner on 15.03.2022. The committee submitted Ext.P7 report recommending to consider the request of the petitioner for invalid pension on health grounds. The committee, however, reported to continue disciplinary action against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent, without considering the request for invalid pension, arbitrarily removed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.02.2015, as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent turned down the request of the petitioner for invalid pension as per Ext.P9 dated 19.04.2023. The petitioner thereafter sent Ext.P10 representation to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected Ext.P10 by Ext.P11 order dated 28.11.2023. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.6729/2024. This Court directed the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P14 judgment dated 28.05.2024, to consider the claim of the petitioner for invalid pension. The 2nd respondent did not entertain the claim of the petitioner and passed Ext.P17 order dated 23.09.2024.

6. The petitioner states that Exts.P8 and P17 orders are illegal and unsustainable. The 2nd respondent, before terminating the service of the petitioner, ought to have considered the recommendations of the enquiry committee for sanction of invalid pension an should have directed the petitioner to undergo medical examination for ascertaining mental incapacity for sanction of invalid pension under Rule 42 Part III KSR. Even if the removal of the petitioner from service is acceptable, the 2nd respondent ought to have granted compassionate allowance to the petitioner under Rule 5 Part III KSR without waiting for a formal application from the petitioner.

7. Respondents 2 and 3 opposed the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner requested for extension of LWA on 11.03.2019 which was four years late. The request was rejected as per Ext.R2(a) letter dated 17.05.2019. In reply to Ext.R2(a) letter, the petitioner reported that she is not in a position to rejoin duty as she had entered into a contract to serve civil service in U.K. until the retirement age.

8. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from University service. It was rejected on the grounds of insufficient qualifying service. As the petitioner did not rejoin duty and as she failed to submit satisfactory justification for her prolonged absent, the University was forced to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. A charge memo was issued. For the first time, the petitioner disclosed that she had been suffering from psychosis. The petitioner disobeyed the order of the University for rejoining service and remained absent from duty unauthorisedly without obtaining leave for a long spell of four years. The writ petition is therefore without any merit.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

10. The petitioner applied for LWA and LWA was granted to the petitioner for the period from 01.03.2005 to 28.02.2015. The petitioner sought extension of leave only on 06.04.2015 for a further period of five years from 01.03.2015. The application was rejected on 17.05.2023 and the petitioner was directed to rejoin service. The petitioner would contend that owing to her mental illness, she applied for retirement from service which was declined as per Ext.P3 order dated 07.09.2019.

11. The petitioner contends that by the termination of her service, she was prevented from claiming the benefits of invalid pension under Rule 42 Part III KSR. It is to be noted that the petitioner's sanctioned leave expired as early on 28.02.2015. Thereafter, in spite of instructions, the petitioner did not rejoin duty. The petitioner did not report any mental illness at that point of time.

12. When the petitioner was required to rejoin duty as per Ext.R2(a) letter dated 17.05.2019, the petitioner reported that she was not in a position to rejoin duty as she had entered into a contract to serve civil service in U.K. until retirement. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from University service only thereafter. From 28.02.2015 till 17.05.2019, the petitioner did not deem it necessary to take voluntary retirement. It is only when a charge memo was issued that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement.

13. Respondents 2 and 3 would assert that the petitioner, in more than one instance, during May, 2019 and September, 2021, had appraised the University about her employment status in UK. It would only show that the petitioner was in her senses and she was not interested to serve the University and she has been holding another gainful employment abroad.

                  In the afore circumstances, the respondents are justified in declining invalid pension benefits to the petitioner. The writ petition is without any merit and it is hence dismissed.