IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2133 of 2005(D)
1. P.G.JACOB, TC NO.7/1596-1,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A & E) KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :06/09/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.2133 OF 2005
---------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.04 as Selection Grade
Lecturer from Mar Ivanious College, Thiruvananthapuram on attaining
55 years of age. The petitioner entered service as an aided College
teacher in Kerala from 6.2.1981. Prior to that he was working in
Kohima College in Nagaland from 17.9.1973. The grievance of the
petitioner in this writ petition is that the period of service put in by him
in Nagaland has not been taken into account for the purpose of
determining his qualifying service for pension. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks the following reliefs.
“i) to declare that the service rendered by the
petitioner from 17.9.1973 to 5.2.1981 in outside State
College is entitled to be reckoned for retiral benefits.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or
direction to the respondents to reckon the outside
service of the petitioner and to revise his retiral
benefits, and to disburse the consequential monetary
benefits with 10% interest from 8.10.04 onwards till
date of payment.
iii) to issue any other writ or order or direction
to the respondents as may be considered fit and
proper”.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that for the purpose of
W.P.(c)No.2133/05 2
granting Selection Grade, the said period of service has been taken
into account and therefore, going by Rule 9 of part III of K.S.R.
read with Ext.P7 Government order, the period of service put in by
the petitioner in Nagaland should also be taken into account for the
purpose of determining the qualifying service for pension.
2. I have heard the learned Government pleader also. The
learned Government pleader submits that the petitioner’s prayer
cannot be allowed because his service as a Lecturer in Nagaland
was tagged on for the purpose of Selection Grade only because of
Ext.P2 order of the Government which specifically permitted the
same, that too in view of the guidelines issued by the University
Grants Commission. That Government order applies for that
purpose alone. Since there are no orders in force which authorises
taggin on the service put in in another State for the purpose of
granting pension by the State of Kerala, the said period cannot be
reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pension
to the petitioner. He further submits that Ext.P7 Circular is not at
all applicable because it relates to employees who were absorbed
from one service into another service, which is not the case of the
petitioner.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is
true that the petitioner is eligible to get his service in a College in
Nagaland for the purpose of granting Selection Grade by virtue of
W.P.(c)No.2133/05 3
Ext.P2. But neither in Ext.P2 nor anywhere else is there any
stipulation that such service could be counted for the purpose of
determining qualifying service for pension also. Qualifying service
for pension has to be determined on the basis of Chapter II of Part
III of Kerala Service Rules and Government Orders issued in that
regard. I do not find any provision in Chapter II or in any
Government Order which enables the petitioner to get his service in
a College in Nagaland added to his Service in the State of Kerala for
the purpose of determining his qualifying service for pension. As
pointed out by the learned Government pleader Ext.P7 has
absolutely no application for deciding the said issue since the same
relates to employees absorbed from one service into another. The
petitioner has no case that the petitioner has been absorbed from
Nagaland service into the Kerala service.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.2133/05 4