IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1772 of 2006(C)
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
Vs
1. K.C. GANGADHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------------
W.A. No.1772 of 2006
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in the writ petition are the
appellants. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. The writ petitioner/respondent herein joined the
Revenue Department as peon on 10.9.1975. He retired from
service on 29.2.2000 while working in the post of Upper
Division Clerk from the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Perambra.
Before his entry in service in 1975, the respondent has worked
as L.D.C. on provisional basis from 14.10.1969 to 31.12.1969.
After his retirement, respondent preferred Ext.P1
representation before the Accountant General praying that
the provisional service rendered by him from 14.10.1969 to
31.12.1969 may be reckoned as qualifying service for
computing pensionary benefits. As per Ext.P2, the Accountant
General called for the service records for taking a decision on
his representation. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 dated 9.1.2001, the
W.A. No.1772 of 2006 – 2 –
Accountant General’s Office rejected his representation. The
reason given was that the provisional service rendered by him
mentioned above has not been reckoned for granting
increments. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3, this writ petition was
filed. The petitioner relied on Exts.P4 and P5 Government
orders in support of his claim. Learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition holding that all provisional service prior to
1.1.1994 is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits.
Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this writ appeal is
filed.
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for
the appellants. He pointed out that Ext.P4 Government Order
provides that provisional service rendered with or without
break up to 30.9.1994 which qualifies for earning increments in
terms of Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33, Part I,
K.S.R. will be reckoned as qualifying service. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that the service rendered by
the petitioner/respondent as L.D.C. in 1969 for about 3
months was not reckoned for grant of increments and could not
W.A. No.1772 of 2006 – 3 –
have been reckoned for increments also. Decision NO.2 under
Rule 33 which enables reckoning of provisional service for
grant of increments has been deleted by Ext.P6 with effect
1.10.1995. According to the learned Government Pleader,
going by the Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I, KSR, the
claim of the petitioner is unsustainable.
4. It is common ground that provisional service
rendered before 1994 could be reckoned for grant of
pensionary benefits provided the said service qualifies for
increment as provided in Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I,
K.S.R. which remained in force up to 30.9.1994. The said
decision reads as follows:
“Government Decision No.2:
Provisional service on regularisation
with or without break in the same category or
post will be treated as officiating service ab
initio for the limited purpose of granting of
increments. Provisional service followed by a
regular appointment with or without break in
the same category of post will also be treated
as officiating service ab initio for the limited
W.A. No.1772 of 2006 – 4 –
purpose of granting of increments.
The term ‘same category’ of post for the
purpose denotes posts satisfying the following
conditions:-
(i) The posts should carry the same or
identical scale of pay.
(ii) The qualification and method of
appointment should be the same.
(iii) The post should fall in the same
service.
The above decision shall be deemed to
have come into force with effect from
1.11.1956 but the monetary benefit thereof
will be admissible only with effect from
24.7.1967.”.
5. Going by the above decision, we have no doubt
in our mind that the relevant provisional service does not
qualify for increment. The petitioner drew his first increment in
the post of peon. His provisional service was in the post of
L.D.C. Those posts were always carrying different scales of
pay and qualification for those posts are also different. In
view of the above position, the provisional service of the
W.A. No.1772 of 2006 – 5 –
petitioner cannot be counted for granting increment. If that be
so, the same cannot be reckoned for grant of pensionary
benefits also.
In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The
judgment under appeal is reversed and the original petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR,
JUDGE.
DK.
(True copy)