IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 11952 of 2003(W)
1. T.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
O.P.No. 11952 of 2003 W
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s father had retired from service on
30.4.1976 at the age of 60 years while he was working as Full
Time Contingent Chainman in Survey and Land Revenue
Department. This writ petition has been preferred praying
inter alia to quash Ext.P8 order of the respondent by which
the request of the petitioner for retirement benefit connected
with the service of his father was declined. It is also prayed
for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the
petitioner all the pensionary benefits including the arrears of
pension and family pension in respect of the service of late
K.Narayanan Nambiar- his father.
2. According to the averments in the writ petition,
the petitioner’s father initially worked as IInd Grade Warder in
the Central Prison as per Ext.P1 for a period from 9.3.1946 to
4.11.1947 and 13.5.1958 to 12.8.1958. After the said period,
he was terminated from service. But, subsequently, on the
basis of his representation, the Government appointed him in
contingent post in other Department. Thus, according to the
OP NO.11952 of 2003
:-2-:
petitioner, as per Ext.P2, his father was appointed as Full Time
Contingent Chainman in Survey and Land Revenue Department
and he joined duty as on 23.9.1968. Thereafter, he had worked
up to 30.4.1976 on which date he was retired on his attaining the
age of 60. The petitioner’s mother preferred Ext.P3
representation for retirement benefit, and that request was
declined by the Department as per Ext.P4 order. Challenging
Ext.P4, the petitioner’s mother moved O.P.No.5876 of 1992 and
in that writ petition, the benefit of Ext.P6 Government Order was
sought. But, the learned single Judge was not inclined to grant
the relief and on dismissing the writ petition, a writ appeal was
preferred which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. This Court, by
Ext.P5 judgment, asked the Department to consider the claim in
the light of Ext.P6 Government Order. Thereafter, the mother of
the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation. After considering
Ext.P7 representation, the Department issued Ext.P8 order by
which the request was declined on the ground that the petitioner’s
father was not having minimum qualifying service. It is, in this
third round, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
above writ petition.
OP NO.11952 of 2003
:-3-:
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Government Pleader.
4. The entire claim of the petitioner for pensionary
benefit is based upon Ext.P6 Government Order produced in this
writ petition. In Ext.P8, it is stated that the benefit of Ext.P6 order
cannot be extended in the case of the father of the petitioner as
he was not in service from the date of the Government Order.
Ext.P6 Government Order is dated 29.11.1989. Petitioner’s
father retired from service on 30.4.1976. Going by Ext.P6, it can
be seen that the facts and circumstances involved in the case are
not sufficient to invoke the benefit conferred by Ext.P6
Government Order. By Ext.P8 order, Ext.P7 representation was
considered in the light of Ext.P6 order and the request was
declined by assigning sufficient reasons. The reasons assigned
are in accordance with law and the Government Orders on the
subject. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is
illegal or incorrect.
OP NO.11952 of 2003
:-4-:
In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge.
MBS/
OP NO.11952 of 2003
:-5-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
O.P.NO. 11952 OF 2003
——————————————–
J U D G M E N T
DATED: 15-6-2009
OP NO.11952 of 2003
:-6-: