IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 34 of 2006()
1. M.C.THOMAS, MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER, ST.JOHNS SYRIAN HIGH
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ.
————————————–
W.A. No. 34 of 2006
—————————————
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Appellant/Petitioner was appointed as a part-time menial from
25.1.1968 to 28.3.1968 in the second respondent’s school. The above
temporary service was approved by the educational authorities. One M.C.
Chacko, a part-time menial of the school, took leave preparatory to his
retirement. In the year 1973, petitioner applied to get appointment to that
post. On a wrong interpretation of rule 51A, Chapter XIV-A, Kerala Education
Rules, the Manager refused to give him that post and appointed a fresh hand.
Even though educational authorities upheld his right, he was not given
appointment till 16.7.1993. Later, he got appointment as a full-time menial
and he continued in service. He retired on 30.9.2002. He filed various
representations. Finally, by Ext.P1, his representation was partly allowed
and he was declared to be entitled for being treated as deemed to be in
service as part-time/full-time menial in the educational agency from 1974
onwards for the limited purpose of treating his service for pension as
qualifying service for pension. The relevant portion is quoted as follows:
“….. In the circumstances, Government consider
that the petitioner should have been appointed in the
first available vacancy itself. Here, in this case, theW.A.No. 34/2006 2
first available vacancy had arisen in 1973 against
which appointment was made by the management in
1974. In the circumstances, the request of the
petitioner is contained in Ext.P1 representation dated
22.10.1998 is allowed and he is declared to be entitled
for being treated as deemed to be in service as part-
time/full-time menial in the educational agency from
1974 onwards for the limited purpose of treating the
above service as qualifying service for pension.”
His service for the period from 1974 onwards was allowed as qualifying
service for pension and not for any other purpose. It is true that there was no
order to appoint him only notionally from 19.11.1974 and grant him grade
benefits or service benefits. If that be so, after 1994, when he got the
appointment, he should have been fixed in a higher grade, but, that was not
granted. He accepted Ext.P1 order. On that basis, he made further
representations and Government by Ext.P6 order held that the appellant will
be entitled only to pension on the ground that he was deemed to be in service
from 1974 onwards. That will not make him eligible to higher grade in that
post. Ext.P1 is not challenged by him. It is very clearly stated in Ext.P1 that
the period from 1974 will be treated only for the limited purpose of treating the
above service as qualifying service for pension. There is no order in Ext.P1
to give him appointment from 1974 and give him benefits and fixation of
salary if he was appointed in 1974. Consequential appointment was not
made. Therefore, he will be entitled to pension on the basis of last drawn
salary actually received by him. But, pension and retiral benefits can be
calculated as he had service from 1974. According to the learned
W.A.No. 34/2006 3
Government Pleader what is granted in Ext.P1 itself is passed taking a
lenient view. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to get any further relief.
Ext.P1 is correctly interpreted in Ext.P6. Appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
Thomas P. Joseph
Judge
vaa
W.A.No. 34/2006 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.
————————————-
W.A. No.34/2006
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:20th August, 2008