Temporary government servants appointed under specific rules are not entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Kerala Service Rules and the Public Service Act.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The issue raised in this Original Petition is whether a temporary Government servant appointed under R.9(a)(1) of the General Rules in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules is entitled to pensionary benefits, including monthly pension, commuted value of pension and death cum retirement gratuity, on his retirement on superannuation at the age of 55 years, if he had more than 10 years of service to his credit. As per R.57 of Part III KSR persons with minimum service of 10 years service are entitled to pension. The petitioner was appointed on provisional basis under R.9(a)(1) of the general Rules in Part II of KS & SSR on 25.5.1982. His appointment was for a period of 179 days. He filed O.P. No. 8883/82 seeking the benefit of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Based on the Full Bench decision in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 829) his original Petition was disposed of with the direction that termination of his temporary service will have to be governed by Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, except of course so far as may be necessary to accommodate those advised by the Public Service Commission. Ext. P1 is the judgment. Subsequent to the said Full Bench judgment, the Kerala Public Service Act was amended introducing S.(4), in 1984, to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other matter or in any judgment or order of Court, the appointment of any person to any public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala and conditions of service including termination of service of persons so appointed shall be covered by the Public Service Act and the Rules made there under. In terms of that amendment subsequent to Ext. P1, the petitioner's service could have been terminated even without recourse to Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. His appointment was to the post of Motor Mechanic. It is not known whether any incumbent had been advised by the Public Service Commission. Any how the petitioner continued in sendee uninterruptedly from 25.5.1982 onwards till 31,7.1994, when he attained the age of 55 years. Thus, he had to life credit more than 12 years service. On its strength, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to pension in terms of Rule 57 Part II KSR.

2. Admittedly by him, he was not granted increments after the first 8 years of service. Obviously because of the subsequent amendment to R.9(a) of the General Rules. The petitioner was not given the time bound higher-grade promotion, as he is not entitled to a regular employment. The petitioner submits that disbursement of pensionary benefits is delayed and therefore, he is entitled to interest of pension amount.

3. Apart from claiming pensionary benefits, he also seek a direction to "approve the petitioner in the post of Motor Mechanic in the Ground Water Department with retrospective effect from 25.5.1982 and grant all consequential reliefs with arrears".

He also seeks for a direction to give the benefit of pay revision with effect from 1.3.1992 and the benefit of "surrender leave salary for the un availed Earned-Leave as applicable to other regular employees.

4. Admittedly by the petitioner, he was appointed on temporary basis and continued as a temporary employee. Therefore, he is not entitled for any direction "to approve the petitioner in the post of Motor Mechanic in the Ground Water Department with retrospective effect from 25.5.1982". Even in terms of Ext. P1 judgment he is not entitled for regularisation. He was a temporary employee and he continued as a temporary employee till 31.7.1994.

5. The main claim urged by the petitioner is for grant of retirement benefits including pension and gratuity. For this purpose, he has cited a decision in A.P. Sreevasthava v. Union of India (JT 1995 (6) SC 665) and Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and others (1995 AIR SCW 370). The first case concerns a te