IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2409 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
3. ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Vs
1. K.BHASKARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
------------------------------
Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellants are the respondents in the Original
Petition. The respondent herein was the petitioner. The brief
facts of the case are the following:
The respondent retired from the K.S.E.Board on
31.5.2003. He joined the K.S.E.Board on 28.12.1976. Before
joining the Board, he served in the Telecom Department from
26.3.1974 to 8.12.1976. As per the orders then in force, the
respondent was entitled to count his past service in the Telecom
Department reckoned for the computation of pension. So, he
moved the Board. The Board accepted his claim and passed
Ext.P1 order dated 12.1.2004. The operative portion of the said
order reads as follows:
“5. Board examined the matter in detail and
sanction is accorded to reckon the services rendered
by Sri.K.Bhaskaran, Sub Engineer (Rtd.) in the
Telecom Department for pensionary benefits in the
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
– 2 –
Board condoning the break of 19 days from
9.12.1976 FN to 27.12.1976 AN. It is also ordered
to recover the Leave Salary and pension
contribution from the incumbent in case the former
employer fails to remit the same.”.
Later, by Ext.P2 order dated 30.9.2004, the respondent was
called upon to remit an amount of Rs.25,916/- towards
pensionary benefits payable by the Telecom Department. It
was accompanied by Ext.P3 calculation sheet. The demand
comprised of interest also. Therefore, he filed Ext.P4
representation praying that interest portion may be waived
from the said amount and he may be permitted to pay the
principal amount of Rs.1,839/-. The Chief Engineer, by Ext.P5
communication, allowed the said representation. Later, the
Board issued a general order, Ext.P6 dated 01.9.2005, wherein
the following general directions were issued. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as follows:
“A number of representations from the Board
employees who have prior service elsewhere, are
pending disposal in the Board for want of clarification.
On detailed examination of the cases, the Board in its
meeting held on 22.08.2005 decided to accord sanction to
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
– 3 –
the following:-
(1) Continue to count the prior service in the
Departments or Government of India/Central
Autonomous body rendered by the Board
employees as provided in the G.O.(P)
No.369/87/Fin. dated 31-3-1987 and G.O.(P)
No.703/20902/Fin dated 12-11-2002 for the
purpose of pension in the Board, subject to
realization of the pro-rata pension liability from the
Departments of Government of India/Central
Autonomous body concerned.
(2) Continue to count the past service rendered by the
Board employees in the Kerala State Government
Departments for the purpose of pension in the
Board, without insisting the Kerala State
Government Department to pay the pro-rata
pension contribution to the Board.
(3) Count the past service rendered by the Board
employees in the Kerala State Public Sector
undertakings/autonomous body for the purpose of
pension in the Board subject to realization of the
pro-rata pension liability from the Kerala State
Public Sector undertaking/Autonomous bodies.
(4) Fix a time limit of one year from joining the Board
for the Board employee who desires to apply for
counting the past service, if any, for the purpose of
pension in the Board and to make applicable this
time limit in future cases. A time limit of one year
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
– 4 –
from 01-09-2005 will be allowed to the existing
employees to apply for counting the past service, if
any, for the purpose of pension. Request made
after this time limit, will not be entertained.
(5) Since a time limit of one year is prescribed there is
no necessity to levy interest on belated remittance
of pro-rata pension contribution. No interest on this
account will be levied in the case of employees
whose representations are pending for decision in
the Board at present.
(6) Also decided to deny the request of the employees
to remit the pro-rata pension contribution by the
employees themselves, in the event of the former
employer refusing to pay the pro-rata pension
liability. This is applicable to the pending request as
well as to the future cases.
(7) Also decided not to reopen the cases settled in the
past otherwise than in the above mentioned times
and to regulate the pending cases as per these
guidelines.”.
(emphasis supplied)
The claim of the petitioner was sought to be resisted relying on
clause (6) of Ext.P6 order quoted above. Feeling aggrieved by
the stand of the appellants, the writ petition was filed. The
learned Single Judge took the view that, even going by
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
– 5 –
clause (6), the petitioner’s case cannot be treated as a
pending matter. In view of Exts.P1 and P5, the matter should
be taken as settled. What remains is only computation and
payment of the amount due to him. So, the writ petition was
allowed. Challenging the said judgment, the respondents have
preferred this writ appeal.
2. According to the appellants, since the petitioner
failed to pay the amount of Rs.1,839/- and the Telecom
Department also did not pay the amount, the matter should be
taken as a pending matter and therefore, by operation of
clause (6) of Ext.P6, the petitioner is not entitled to get the
reliefs. We notice that, Ext.P1 provided for recovery of the
amount from him, if the pro-rata pensionary benefits are not
paid by the Telecom Department. Later, by Ext.P5, the
amount to be recovered was reduced to the principal amount.
In fact, thereafter, nothing remains as far as the case of the
petitioner is concerned. So, we agree with the learned Single
Judge that the petitioner’s case should be taken as a case
settled. In view of the above position, we find no reason to
W.A. No.2409 of 2007
– 6 –
interfere with the judgment under appeal.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
C.T. Ravikumar,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)