High Court Kerala High Court

C. Jegendranatha Vidyasagar vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
C. Jegendranatha Vidyasagar vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 6928 of 2003(Y)


1. C. JEGENDRANATHA VIDYASAGAR, RETIRED
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.V. SADANANDAN, RETIRED DISTRICT
3. T.M. SOMAN, JOINT DIRECTOR OF
4. C.K. NARAYANAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
5. P.C. GOPALAN, RETIRED JOINT DIRECTOR
6. C.K. KUTTAPPAN, RETIRED MEMBER
7. D. RUPAN, RETIRED JOINT DIRECTOR,
8. Y. GNANASEELAN, RETIRED DEPUTY
9. G. THULASEEDHARAN, RETIRED DISTRICT

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, VIKAS BHAVAN

5. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,

6. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCES,

7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION

8. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :01/06/2009

 O R D E R
                              P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                 -----------------------------------------------------
                            O.P.No.6928 of 2003,
              W.P.(C)Nos. 15119 of 2004 & 6966 of 2006
                ------------------------------------------------------
                             Dated 1st June, 2009

                                   JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan and Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Ashok M.Cheriyan,

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity

Board and Sri.N.Manoj Kumar, the learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala. Common questions arise in

these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners are pensioners. Some of them entered

service initially in the State Government, later served in the Kerala

State Electricity Board and again went back to State service. Some of

them joined the Kerala State Electricity Board and thereafter went

over to State service. The dispute raised in these writ petitions is

whether the service rendered by the petitioners in the Kerala State

Electricity Board can be reckoned for the purpose of grant of

pensionary benefits. The State Government had issued G.O.(P)

No.228/2001/Fin. dated 2.2.2001 proposing to amend Rule 20 of Part

III of the Kerala Service Rules. In the said Government order it was

O.P.No.6928/2003 & conncected cases 2

stipulated that the service if any, put in by Government employees in

the Municipal Common Service/Panchayaths/Universities prior to their

entry in State Government service including Aided Schools service and

vice versa can be reckoned for pensionary benefits. The Government

also decided to incorporate a note under Rule 20 of Part III of the

Kerala Service Rules. It was also ordered that the formal

amendments to Part III of the Kerala Service Rules will be issued

separately. After the aforesaid Government order was issued, some of

the Government servants who had served for a short spell of time in

the Kerala State Electricity Board filed a writ petition in this Court

contending that the service rendered by them in the Kerala State

Electricity Board before joining the State Government service has to be

reckoned for the purpose of grant of pension.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu.P.K. v. Chief

Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board (2007 (1) KLJ 35) held

that the Government order dated 2.2.2001 cannot operate since the

field is occupied by a statutory rule and the statutory rule has not been

amended. It was also held that even if Government order dated

2.2.2001 is applied, it cannot govern the service rendered by

Government servants in the Kerala State Electricity Board. I am

bound by the decision of the Division Bench and applying the dictum

O.P.No.6928/2003 & conncected cases 3

laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision it has to be

held that the Government order dated 2.2.2001 cannot govern the

petitioners. Further, Rule 20 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules has

been amended by G.O.(P)No.269/2008/Fin. dated 21.6.2008 by

incorporating a proviso and a note. The Proviso to Rule 20 of Part III of

the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows:

“Provided that the past service put in by
Government employees and Aided School/Aided
College Teachers in Panchayath/Municipal
Common Service and Universities prior to their
entry in State Government Service or Aided
School/Aided College Service shall be reckoned as
qualifying service for Pension and Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity from Government.”

On the terms of the proviso to Rule 20, it cannot be stated that the

service rendered by Government servants in the Kerala State

Electricity Board has to be reckoned as qualified service for pension

and DCRG. Therefore, Rule 20 as amended also does not apply to the

petitioners’ case. Since the proposal set out in the Government order

dated 2.2.2001 has been carried out by amending the rule, the

Government order dated 2.2.2001 can no longer be relied upon. Even

if it is relied upon, as held by the Division Bench it does not govern the

service rendered by Government servants in the Kerala State

Electricity Board. Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ

O.P.No.6928/2003 & conncected cases 4

petitions cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

4. I however notice that the Government have in Ext.P24

order dated 10.1.2008 produced along with I.A.No.5127 of 2009 in

O.P.No.6928 of 2003, granted pensionary benefits to one

Sri.J.Muhammed Basheer who retired as Under Secretary to

Government taking into account the service rendered by him in the

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as well as in the Kerala State

Housing Board. Rule 10 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules states

that the service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless he

is appointed, his duties regulated, and paid by the Government or

under conditions determined by the Government. Rule 11 of Part III

of the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows:

“11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10, the
Government may
(1) declare that any specified kind of service
rendered shall qualify for pension; and
(2) in individual cases, and subject to such
conditions as they may think fit to impose in
each case, allow service rendered by an
employee to count for pension.”

5. Ext.P24 order discloses that it has been issued invoking

the power of the Government under sub rule (2) of Rule 11 of Part III

of the Kerala Service Rules . It was invoking the said power that the

Government permitted Sri.J.Muhammed Basheer to reckon as

qualifying service for pensionary benefits, the service rendered by him

O.P.No.6928/2003 & conncected cases 5

in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Kerala State

Housing Board. Ext.P24 also discloses that the beneficiary of the said

order was also directed to pay the share of pension contribution that

the KSRTC and Kerala State Housing Board would have had to pay if

such service were to be made pensionable. Therefore, notwithstanding

the fact that I have declined to interfere with the orders impugned in

these writ petitions, I direct that in the event of the petitioners filing

appropriate representations under Rule 11(2) of Part III of the Kerala

Service Rules before the Government, the Government shall consider

the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. Final

orders in the matter shall be passed, if the petitioners move the

Government, within six months from the date on which the

representations are received from the petitioners.

The writ petitions are disposed of with the above

observation.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

TKS