High Court Kerala High Court

K.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Kerala Water Authority … on 3 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Kerala Water Authority … on 3 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26589 of 2007(M)


1. K.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,RETD. OPERATOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH DIVISION,

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.V.ASHA

                For Respondent  :SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :03/06/2009

 O R D E R
                             S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 -------------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C)No. 26589 OF 2007
                                      and
                      W.P.(C)No. 25639 OF 2008
                 -------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009


                                 JUDGMENT

These writ petitions are filed by a low level employee of the

Kerala Water Authority aggrieved by denial of pension and medical

reimbursement benefits as also challenging the revision of time

bound higher grade benefits granted to the petitioner earlier, after

filing the first writ petition. As far as the medical reimbursement

benefits are concerned, pursuant to interim orders of this court, as

per the directions of the Government in the matter, the amounts have

subsequently been disbursed to the petitioner. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that, that too was only after filing of a contempt

petition.

2. According to the petitioner, petitioner commenced the

service of the Kerala Water Authority on 30.03.73 as a CLR worker.

By Government Order dated 23.02.79, the Government decided to

absorb CLR workers, who have completed 240 days of service as

NMR workers. That was with effect from 01.04.79. Subsequently by

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:2:-

Ext.P12 Government Order dated 25.7.81, the Government directed

grant of benefits of regularisation as NMR worker with effect from

04.08.77. (Ext.P12 in WP(C) No.65289/09). Petitioner was also

given regularisation in service in accordance with those Government

Orders. As is clear from the copy of the service book of the

petitioner produced as Ext.P1, the pay of the petitioner was fixed

reckoning his service from 04.08.77. Thereafter he was given 10

years higher grade with effect from 04.08.87. By Ext.P2 the 3rd

respondent fixed the pay of the petitioner granting 10 years’ higher

grade with effect from 04.08.87 on 10.12.89. By Ext.P3 order dated

07.12.95 the petitioner was granted higher grade benefits after 18

years with effect from 04.08.95. Subsequently by Ext.P4 dated

22.12.00 petitioner was given 23 years higher grade from 04.08.00.

On 01.06.05 audit objection was raised on the ground that the grant

of higher grades given to the petitioner was not correct, since the

petitioner was not qualified. Petitioner filed WP(C) No.28014/05 and

by judgment dated 12.06.06 that writ petition was allowed and the

impugned orders were quashed. By Ext.P9 dated 17.04.06 sanction

was accorded for reckoning the pre-regularised CLR/SLR service of

the petitioner also for time bound higher grades. Petitioner

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:3:-

requested for forwarding his pension papers to the Accountant

General by request dated 12.02.07. Petitioner retired from service

on 31.05.07. Thereafter petitioner filed WP(C) No.26589/07

complaining that pension and medical reimbursement were not given

to the petitioner. In that writ petition by an interim order dated

20.09.07 this Court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision on

the question of grant of provisional pension to the petitioner. By

Ext.P7 provisional pension was sanctioned. Petitioner would contend

that Ext.P7 order itself was issued, after a notice for initiating

contempt proceedings was issued to the 2nd respondent.

Subsequently the Government issued order dated 16.02.08 which is

Ext.P17 in WP(C) No.25639/08, according sanction for

reimbursement of medical benefit to the tune of Rs.1,16,168/-. By

order dated 24.03.08 this Court directed the Water Authority to take

consequential action on the basis of Ext.P17. Petitioner again

complained before this court that no action was taken. This court

again passed order dated 13.06.08 directing the 1st respondent to

disburse to the petitioner the amounts sanctioned as per Ext.P17,

without further delay, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Even thereafter that amount was not

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:4:-

paid. Petitioner thereafter filed CCC No.742/08, after which only that

amount was paid. Subsequently, by Ext.P8 order dated 07.08.08 the

2nd respondent revised the higher grade benefits granted to the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to service

benefits counting his service with effect from 01.04.79 only. It is

under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed these two writ

petitions seeking the following reliefs:

WP(C) : 26589/07

“i. declare that petitioner is entitled to get his pension and
pensionary benefits settled, sanctioned and disbursed reckoning

his CLR service for the period from 30.3.1973 onwards and NMR

service from 4.8.1977 onwards;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

direction commanding the respondents to revise the time bound

higher grades granted to petitioner reckoning his continuous CLR

service for the period from 1973 to 1977 also, to re-fix the pay of

petitioner accordingly and to settle his pensionary benefits based

on the pay thus arrived at, reckoning his CLR service from 1973

onwards and NMR service from 4.8.1977, to sanction and disburse

all pensionary benefits due to him accordingly;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

direction commanding the 1st respondent to sanction and disburse

the amount claimed by the petitioner in Ext.P11 towards due to

petitioner towards Medical Reimbursement forthwith;”

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:5:-

WP(C) : 25639/08

“i. call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and P8 and quash Ext.P7
to the extent it directs revision of higher grades granted to petitioner

and quash Ext.P8 by issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate

writ, order or direction;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

direction commanding the respondents to restore the higher grades

granted to petitioner in Ext.P2 to P4 and to grant him the benefits of

2007 pay revision, to fix his pension reckoning his service as

recorded in Ext.P10 also and to settle and disburse all the terminal

benefits due to the petitioner;”

3. A counter affidavit has been filed in WPC 26589/07 and a

statement in the other writ petition. The tenor of the counter affidavit

and statement appears to be that the entries in the service book have

been unauthenticated and doubtful and therefore the petitioner is not

entitled to benefits on the basis of service as entered in the service

book.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Ext.P1 and

P10 are the entries relating to the petitioner’s service in his service

book. The existence of those entries is not disputed by the

respondents. The 2nd respondent’s contention is that the entries are

unauthenticated and doubtful. As far as Ext.P10 is concerned, the

averment that it is unauthenticated itself is false. That entry has

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:6:-

been authenticated by the Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Vaikom

on 01.06.79. It categorically states that the petitioner worked as CLR

pump operator for the period from 30.03.73 to 30.3.79. I specifically

asked the counsel for the Water Authority as to how the 2nd

respondent came to the conclusion that Ext.P10 has not been

authenticated and the entry is doubtful. I specifically asked the

counsel as to whether the 2nd respondent had enquired with the

Assistant Engineer, who was in service on 11.06.79 and who

attested the entry, as to whether he had made such an entry and

attested it. The counsel had no answer. It is also not disputed

before me that the responsibility of maintaining the service book of

the employees is that of the 2nd respondent. If the entries in the

service book are not correct or unauthenticated, then the

responsibility lies with the 2nd respondent himself. If entries are

wrong, it was the responsibility of the 2nd respondent to see that the

entries are properly corrected to show the correct entries. The 2nd

respondent has no case that he had taken any steps in that regard.

The entries in the service book specifically show that the petitioner

entered service as a CLR worker on 30.03.73. It is also specifically

stated that his service was regularized originally with effect from

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:7:-

01.04.97 as NMR worker. It is also specifically stated therein that the

service benefits were re-fixed with effect from 04.08.77 as an NMR

worker. The 2nd respondent has no case that the entries in the

service book has later been changed. Ext.P1(a) is the service book

of another person by name, K.Ravindran. The service book of that

person is identical to that of the petitioner. It is strange that the 2nd

respondent does not have any doubts regarding the entries in the

service book of Sri.K.Ravindran and at the same time he entertains a

doubt as to the entries therein, that too after the filing of WP(C)

26589/07 and he finds it necessary to pass Ext.P8 order revising the

higher grade benefits given to the petitioner contrary to the entries in

the service book, without correcting the entries therein. Ext.P8 order

also does not state as to from where the 2nd respondent obtained the

information that re-fixation of the time bound higher grade benefits

given to the petitioner has become necessary. The petitioner points

out that Ext.P8 order was passed by the person holding the post of

the 2nd respondent the day prior to his transfer from that station. As

such, the entire action of the 2nd respondent in regard to the benefits

due to the petitioner is dubious to say the least. In Ext.P7 which is

the letter from the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent sanctioning

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:8:-

provisional pension there are some reservations on the reckoning of

the service for the purpose of higher grade, the basis for which also

is not clear.

5. By Ext.P9 order dated 17.04.06 the Managing Director of

the Water Authority himself had, apparently based on judgments of

this Court, accorded sanction for counting pre-regularised CLR

service of certain employees of the Kerala Water Authority for the

purpose of higher grade subject to certain conditions. By Ext.P13

Circular the Managing Director again held that even in the case of

CLR/SLR workers whose service has been subsequently regularized,

in respect of whom no records of their earlier service are available,

minimum one year CLR service should be counted for service

benefits in so far as regularization can only be after putting in 240

days of service.

6. From the orders of the Government and the Kerala Water

Authority it is abundantly clear that the service as CLR worker is also

eligible to be counted for calculating higher grades and consequently

pension. The service book of the petitioner shows that the petitioner

entered service as a CLR worker on 30.03.73. The service book also

shows that the petitioner’s service was regularized as an NMR

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:9:-

worker with effect from 04.08.77. Petitioner has categorically stated

in the writ petition that these details are available from other records

of the Water Authority themselves. He has in Ext.P11 statement

specifically quoted some of the pages of ‘M Books’ relating to the

petitioner’s work, which according to the petitioner would go to prove

the period of work of the petitioner. The petitioner would allege that

the petitioner was prepared to verify the same in the presence of the

respondents. An opportunity for the same was also requested by the

petitioner, but was declined. In fact the petitioner had sought an

interim relief in WP(C) 26589/07, to direct the respondents 2 and 3

to produce the M Book and cash book relating to engagement of

CLR workers for the period from 01.03.73 to 01.04.77. The

respondents have not cared to produce the same or even refer to the

same, which would have been the best evidence either way.

7. In view of the above findings, I am completely satisfied that,

petitioner has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that petitioner’s

service as CLR worker started on 13.03.73 and the petitioner was

regularized as an NMR worker with effect from 04.08.77. In view of

the orders on the subject of grant of higher grades counting CLR

service also, the petitioner is entitled to all his service benefits

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:10:-

calculated accordingly. Consequently, I find that the orders revising

the petitioner’s higher grade benefits are clearly illegal and

unsustainable.

8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Exts.P7 and P8

in WP(C):25639/08 are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner’s

service as CLR worker commences from 13.03.73 and that he has

been absorbed in service as NMR worker with effect from 04.08.77.

Petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits calculating the entire

service from 13.03.73 onwards. Petitioner is also entitled to the

calculation of higher grades taking into account the CLR service from

13.03.73 also. The higher grade benefits and the pensionary

benefits due to the petitioner shall be re-calculated accordingly.

Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2nd respondent as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The arrears due to the

petitioner on account of such re-calculation shall also be disbursed to

the petitioner within the said time.

9. In view of the unreasonable attitude taken by the 2nd

respondent in the matter I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to

pay cost to the petitioner. Cost is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. The same

WPC : 26589/07 & 25639/08
-:11:-

shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. The first

respondent shall take steps to recover from the respective Executive

Engineers who are responsible for the delay in disbursal of the

amounts due to the petitioner, particularly, the person who has

passed Ext.P8 order revising the petitioner’s higher grade benefits.

The writ petitions are allowed as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb