The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Annexure-A9 G.O (P) No.248/80/AD Rule 4(e)(iii) and Rule 9, and the determination that the casual laborer's service should be treated as four years for the purpose of computing pension.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (see page No.8 of the paper book of this O.P) :

“1. To set aside the Exhibit P5 order of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1979/2015

2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application No.1979/2015 filed by the Respondent before the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

3. To declare that Respondent is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1 Original Application.

4. Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala, two department officers concerned & the Accountant General [Audit & Entitlement]) in the O.P/R1 to R4 in the O.A and Sri.C.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal.

3. The original applicant (R1 herein) had filed Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A No.1979/2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench with the following prayers (see page No.19 of the paper book of this O.P) :

“1. To declare that the applicant has 765 casual working days which is to commuted as 4years of service for reckoning pension.

2. To declare that the applicant is entitled for full term pension for 30 years.

3. To declare that the Annexure A-8 is illegal and improper.

4. To declare that his pension and other financial benefits may be fixed for the 30 years of full term pension.

5. Any other order which deems fit and proper to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned Ext.P-5 final order dated 12.01.2018 in O.A No.1979/2015 and the operative portion of the directions therein is contained in paragraph No.9 thereof, which read as follows (see page No.69 of the paper book) :

“9. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get pension for 30 years of qualifying service. There will be a direction to the respondents to issue revised orders with regard to the pensionary claims of the applicant reckoning 30 years as his qualifying service. The first respondent shall issue necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”

5. The State of Kerala and others have filed the instant original petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking interference with the said impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P-5. According to the original applicant, he had joined duty as permanent labour from 07.07.1980 onwards at the Integrated Poultry Development (IPD) Block, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram attached to the Farm under the District office of the Animal Husbandry Department. According to him, prior to his appointment as permanent labourer, he had worked as casual labourer from 1971 to 1980 at IPD Block, Pettah and Broiler Farm, Pettah. It is common ground that the original applicant has served as casual labourer in the Farm concerned under the Animal Husbandry Department on various dates for the periods from 1971 upto 1980. The details of the precise dates on which the applicant has served as casual labourer have been given in a table at page No.2 of the reply statement dated 19.10.2016 filed by the 1st respondent in the O.A (see page No.59 of this paper book). The said table reads as follows :

“TABLE