JUDGMENT K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. Petitioner is a retired Headmaster of a Government High School. He was promoted and posted as Headmaster in the Government High School, Adimaly in the month of August 1993. His date of birth is 7-9-1938 and the date of superannuation is 7-9-1993. The date of retirement was extended till 31-3-1994 as per the provisions contained in R.60 Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules. 2. Subsequent to his promotion as Headmaster petitioner applied for commuted leave on 4-9-1993 till 30-11-1993. The application was filed before the date of superannuation. Petitioner was having 301 days of eligible leave to his credit. The leave requested for was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 order. Pay slip was also issued and the leave salary was drawn for the months of September, October and November. Before the expiry of the period of leave petitioner again applied for extension of leave with effect from 1-12-1991 till 31-1-1994. That request was also granted and petitioner continued on leave For approval of the leave the application had been forwarded to the Accountant General, the 2nd respondent (wrongly mentioned as third respondent in the original petition), While so petitioner was served Ext. P4 order informing him that leave granted from 4-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 was permissible provided he returned to duty on 1-12-1993, Since he had applied for extension of leave from 1-12-1993, which was not permissible, the Accountant General informed by Ext. P4 that petitioner should be retired from service with effect from 30-9-1993. Though Ext. P4 does not contain such a statement it is alleged in the petition that it was directed in Ext. P4 that a sum of Rs. 10,420/- being excess leave salary paid to petitioner has to be recovered from his death cum retirement gratuity and credited in the respective head. Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 and seeks a writ of certiorari to quash that order and to allow petitioner to continue as Headmaster till 31-3-1994. A writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings taken by respondents for recovery of salary drawn by petitioner during the months of September, October and November 1993 is also claimed. 3. Notice was served on respondents. No counter affidavit was filed. 4. Heard counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader. 5. The Accountant General, Kerala, second respondent herein informed third respondent by Ext. 3. Notice was served on respondents. No counter affidavit was filed. 4. Heard counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader. 5. The Accountant General, Kerala, second respondent herein informed third respondent by Ext. P4 that leave granted to petitioner from 4-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 is permissible only if petitioner returned to duty on expiry of leave on 1-12-1993. Petitioner having applied for extension of leave from 1-12-1993 second respondent stated that the grant of leave from 4-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 is not permissible and petitioner should be retired with effect from 30-9-1993. Petitioner's date of birth being 7-9-1938 the date of retirement shall take effect from the afternoon of 30th of September 1993. By virtue of the provision contained in R.60(c) of Part II K. S. R. petitioner being a teaching staff who has completed the age of 55 years during the course of an academic year could continue in service till the last day of the month in which the academic year ends. The rule provides that such a person will not be eligible for Increment or promotion during the period of his service beyond the date of superannuation. If he is on leave on the day on which he attains the age of 55 years and if there is no prospect of returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation he shall be retired with effect from the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 55 years. The other provisions contained in sub-r.(c) are not relevant for our purpose. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had been on leave on the day on which he attained the age of 55 year and the leave requested for had been granted certifying that petitioner is likely to return to duty on the expiry of such leave, Counsel would therefore contend that the grant of leave from 4-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 was in order and the Accountant General is not right in denying petitioner his claim for salary during that period. In support of this contention counsel has cited the decision in Asst. Educational Officer v. Velayudhan Kurup ( 1980 KLT 790 ). In support of this contention counsel has cited the decision in Asst. Educational Officer v. Velayudhan Kurup ( 1980 KLT 790 ). It was held that a reading of ruling No. 2 under R.60(c) of Part I K. S. R. makes it very clear that its provisions will get attracted only if an application for leave made by the concerned teacher subsequent to the date of his superannuation and the ruling only states that on such event happening the teacher shall be retired from service from the date of such application for leave. In the case considered by the Division Bench the application for commuted leave was filed by petitioner on 12-10-1978 whereas he was to attain the age of 55 years only on 11-11-1978. It is observed that to such a case the consequence of forfeiture of service beyond the date of superannuation indicated in Rule No. 2 is not at all attracted. 6. In order to apply the principle enunciated in the aforementioned ruling it is relevant to read ruling No. 2, The ruling reads: "The teaching staff of educational insulations who are allowed to continue in service beyond the date of superannuation till the end of the academic year will not be eligible for any leave during the period of their service beyond the date of superannuation and if they apply for any leave other than casual leave during the period they shall be retired from service from the date of such application for leave." 7. Here is a case where petitioner had applied for leave before the date of superannuation and did not rejoin duty on the expiry of such leave whereas he sought extension. The request for extension is also seen granted by third respondent which is patently against the ruling quoted above. The ruling makes it clear that petitioner will not be eligible for any leave other than casual leave during the period of service beyond the date of superannuation. If an application for leave other than casual leave is made during that period the person has to be retired from service from the date of such application for leave. Since the request for extension of leave from 1-12-1993 onwards was during the extended period the second respondent was right in applying ruling No. 2 and refusing approval of the grant of leave by third respondent. Since the request for extension of leave from 1-12-1993 onwards was during the extended period the second respondent was right in applying ruling No. 2 and refusing approval of the grant of leave by third respondent. The question arises whether petitioner can be retired from service on the last day of the month in which he attained the age of 55 or on the date on which the leave granted earlier expired. 8. To appreciate the contentions advanced by both sides and to apply the principle laid down by the decision in Velayudha Kurup's case (supra) the provision contained in clause (c) of R.60 has to be read along with ruling No. 2. Clause (c) makes it clear that if the person was on leave on the day he attained the age of 55 years and if there is no prospect of the person returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation I he shall be retired with effect from the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 55 years. two conditions are to be fulfilled before a member of a teaching staff who was on leave on the day he attained the age of 55 years during the course of an academic year to be retired with effect from the last day of the month in which he attained the age of 55 years. They are (1) He was on leave on the day he attained the age of 55 years (2) There is no prospect of his returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation, Ruling No. 2 states that if a person applies for any leave other than casual leave during the period of the extended service he shall be retired from service from the date of such application for leave. It is true that in the present case petitioner had satisfied the first condition, viz. entering on leave on the day he attained the age of 55 years. But the second condition has not been fulfilled since there is no prospect of petitioner returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation. That is manifested from the request made by petitioner for extension, of leave from 1-12-1993 onwards for which he is not entitled under ruling No. 2. But the second condition has not been fulfilled since there is no prospect of petitioner returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation. That is manifested from the request made by petitioner for extension, of leave from 1-12-1993 onwards for which he is not entitled under ruling No. 2. If the second application alone is considered ruling No. 2 directly comes into operation and petitioner has to be retired from service from the date of the application for leave, viz. 1-12-1993, But petitioner had already been on leave and in order to avail of the benefits conferred by clause (c) of R.60 he should have returned to duty on expiry of the leave granted under Ext. P1. That having not been done there was no prospect of petitioner returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year for vacation. Petitioner did not also return to duty on expiry of the leave. The second condition having not been fulfilled the consequence is the retirement of petitioner with effect from the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 55 years. That is what second respondent has directed to do by Ext. P4 order. The direction is justified and is in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (c) of R.60 of Part I K. S. R and ruling No. 2 thereunder. 9. The decision in Velayudha Kurup's case (supra) relied on by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the present case since petitioner therein rejoined duty on the expiry of the leave and continued to work in the school. Both the conditions referred earlier were fulfilled in that case, viz. petitioner had been on leave on the day on which he attained the age of 55 years and there was the prospect of the person returning to duty and in fact he had rejoined duty on the expiry of the leave. The decision is therefore distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons the original petition is dismissed but without costs.