IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20906 of 2009(G)
1. M.BALASUBRAMANIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :07/09/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of September 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was included in the rank list published by the
Public Service Commission for the post of Village Assistant in
Palakkad District. List was published on 27.06.1986, but
vacancies were not reported by the Government in time, it is
urged. The petitioner was not appointed during the currency of
the list. The petitioner and others approached this Court in
O.P.No.5191/1989, which was disposed of directing the District
Collector to look into the grievances of the petitioner. It seems
that there was a long gap thereafter and ultimately petitioner
again moved this Court in O.P.No.5978/2000 and pursuant to a
direction issued by this Court to the Government to consider the
petitioners representation, Ext.P1 order was passed by the
Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 39 of Kerala
State and Subordinate Service Rules, directing that the
petitioner be appointed as a L.D.Clerk / Village Assistant in
Palakkad. Accordingly by Ext.P2 order, petitioner was appointed
as a L.D.Clerk.
W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009
2
2. Contending that he should have been appointed in 1988
or 1989, petitioner approached the Government by Ext.P3
representation dated 08.12.2006 seeking an extension of the
service for a further period of 5 years. By Ext.P4 judgment dated
15.03.2007, this Court directed the Government to take a
decision on Ext.P3 representation. Petitioner’s claim was
rejected as per Ext.P5. Petitioner then approached this Court in
W.P.(C).No.20668/2008. This Court essentially considered the
question as to whether petitioner can claim ex gratia pension.
The matter was directed to be decided by the Government as per
Ext.P7 judgment. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 supplementary
representation. Government passed Ext.P9 order granting the
petitioner ex gratia pension at the rate of Rs.1,200/- p.m.
considering the service from 04.12.2001 to 31.05.2007 as
qualifying service. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 to the
extent to which he has been denied what he calls as regular
pension and notional promotion which according to him must be
granted by treating him as in service on the strength of inclusion
in the rank list published in the year 1986. Other consequential
reliefs have also been prayed for.
W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009
3
3. I am not impressed with the case put forward by the
petitioner. Petitioner can claim regular service only pursuant to
Ext.P2 order. Petitioner has accepted Ext.P1 and P2. If the
service rendered by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 till the
date when he retired from service on superannuation alone is
considered, it will fall far short of the service requisite to make
the petitioner eligible for regular pension. The Government, in
these peculiar facts, decided to grant petitioner ex gratia
pension. Petitioner cannot consider himself aggrieved by Ext.P9.
I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P9.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/