IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34135 of 2005(L)
1. M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, PEON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWAM, GURUVAYUR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. THE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
For Respondent :SRI. P.GOPAL, SC, GDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 34135 OF 2005 (l)
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner joined the 1st respondent as a Sweeper on
01.02.1970. He was made permanent only w.e.f. 5/12/1970. By
Ext.P4 proceedings of the 1st respondent, giving him the benefit of
Rule 60(b) of Part I KSR, the Devaswom allowed the petitioner to
continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However,
the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 proceedings to the 3rd
respondent, stating that until 5.12.70, petitioner was only an NMR
and therefore was ineligible for the benefit of Rule 60(b) Part I
KSR. The 3rd respondent consequently issued Ext.P6 to the 1st
respondent and it was at that stage the writ petition was filed.
Consequent on the interim order of this Court staying Exts.P5 and
P6, petitioner continued in service till 60 years and was
superannuated w.e.f. 30/11/2009.
2. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration
is whether, being an NMR till 5.12.1970, the petitioner was
eligible to claim the benefit of Rule 60(b). This question stands
fully answered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Full Bench
WPC No. 34135/2005
:2 :
judgment in WA No.1681/2001 holding that to claim the benefit of
Rule 60(b) Part I KSR, an employee need not have been in
permanent or regular service as on 7/4/1970. This judgment is
seen followed by the Division Bench in RP No.816/2002 in WA
No.2130/2000.
3. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench and the
Division Bench referred to above and as admittedly the petitioner
had entered service prior to 7.4.1970, Ext.P4 order permitting the
petitioner to continue till 60 years could not have been faulted. If
so, Exts.P5 and P6 are illegal and are liable to be quashed and I
do so.
4. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all
consequential benefits on the basis that he continued in service
till 30/11/2009 on a regular basis. Needless to say that the
benefits, if any, shall be reworked and paid to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp