IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24813 of 2007(D)
1. P.R.RADHAMANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFIARS,
3. THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 24813 OF 2007 D
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner approached this Court praying for
quashing Ext. P12 and to direct the 1st respondent to
regularise her service as Female Attendant and to
sanction consequential benefits. Petitioner commenced
service on provisional basis from 1981 and retired on
31-5-2005 as Female Attendant in Thodupuzha
Municipality. Her request for regularisation of her
provisional service was rejected by Exts. P4 and P5 and
her claim for pension was considered by the authorities
and it was eventually rejected by Ext. P12 order. It
is in the aforesaid background this writ petition has
been filed.
2. In the pleadings, the petitioner referred to
Ext. P7 Govt. Order which provides for ex-gratia
pension for those who are ineligible for pension and
she also makes reference to Ext. P8 judgment of this
Court where a similarly situated person’s case was
W.P.(C) No. 24813 OF 2007 -2-
considered and based on Ext. P8 judgment, by Ext. P9
order pension was granted. On these grounds the
petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P12 and to direct the
authorities to grant her consequential benefits.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner commenced her
service on provisional basis and continued so until her
retirement and her service was not regularised. As per
the statutory provisions, only regular service will
count towards pension and the provisional service will
not count for pension. Therefore the claim of the
petitioner for pension has no statutory backing.
4. As far as Ext. P7 Government Order is
concerned, by this order the Government introduced an
Ex-gratia Pension Scheme to provide relief to employees
who retire from service on superannuation and are
ineligible for statutory pension as per the provisions
in Kerala Service Rules. This Scheme only enables the
employees who rendered regular service to get ex-gratia
pension and does not apply to provisional employees
like the petitioner.
5. In so far as Ext. P8 judgment is concerned, as
is evident from the same, the judgment was rendered in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
the judgment does not lay down a law of universal
W.P.(C) No. 24813 OF 2007 -3-
application that provisional employees are entitled to
pension. It may be true that following Ext. P8 ex-
gratia pension may have been granted to a provisional
employee. Equality is a positive concept and an order
of the court cannot perpetuate an illegality. So long
as the rules do not permit to grant pension for
provisional employees like the petitioner, for the
reason that another person has been granted the benefit
by Ext. P9, the petitioner cannot claim parity with
such person.
6. Since the petitioner admittedly was a
provisional employee, in terms of the rules she is not
entitled to pension. Ext. P7 Govt. Order also is
inapplicable to provisional employees. Therefore, the
rejection of the petitioner’s claim by Ext. P12 is
unassailable and the writ petition lacks merits.
In the result, the writ petition will stand
dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-