Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
A.P. Beenamma – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Co-Operative Employee Pension Board – Respondent
WP(C) No. 4108 of 2018
Decided on : 19-06-2024
PENSION - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS - KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES SELF FINANCING PENSION SCHEME, 1994 - RULES 17, 38, 39 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, particularly Rules 17, 38, and 39, which outline the responsibilities of the Pension Board and the conditions under which pensions are payable. The court emphasized that the period of service from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988 must be included in calculating the petitioner’s pension, as previous judgments had established her eligibility for all consequential benefits during that time. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioner was not entitled to full pension due to her not being in service during that period, reinforcing the principle that judicial decisions must be honored and cannot be disregarded by subsequent administrative actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, sought full pension by including her service period from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988, which had been previously recognized by the court for all consequential benefits. Despite this, the bank denied her full pension based on her not being in service during that time, leading her to challenge the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to have her service from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988 counted for pension purposes, as established by prior judgments. The court ruled that the respondents' refusal to grant full pension was unjustified and contrary to established legal principles.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to full pension by including the service period from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988, and whether the respondents' interpretation of the pension scheme rules was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the previous judgments mandating the inclusion of the disputed service period for pension calculations must be upheld, and that the respondents' arguments against this were unfounded and contrary to the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the order denying full pension and directing the respondents to recalculate the pension, including the disputed service period, and to disburse any due arrears within specified timelines.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 for the grant of full pension to the petitioner by reckoning her service for the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988 with arrears thereof. She has also sought for quashing Ext.P4 to the extent full pension is not sanctioned.
2. Succinctly, the brief facts of the case read as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 22.01.1985. However, the resolution by which the petitioner was appointed was rescinded by the Joint Registrar on 15.5.1985. The same was challenged in OP No.6374 of 1985. By Ext.P1 judgment the same was set aside and the Joint Registrar was directed to hear the petitioner and take a fresh decision. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was continuing during the interregnum by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court. Later, the Joint Registrar issued order on 31.12.1987 permitting the petitioner to continue in service and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service. Accordingly, on 21.2.1988, the petitioner was readmitted to duty by the Bank. However, the petitioner’s request for all service benefits including pay and allowances during the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.2.1988 was not granted. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court in O.P. No.3995 of 1991 and, this Court, by judgment dated 22.6.1999, directed the Joint Registrar to take a fresh decision in this regard. In terms of the said decision, the petitioner was found eligible for the entire benefits. Challenging the said request, the 3rd respondent Bank again approached this Court in O.P. No.29538 of 2000 which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment dated 8.1.2004. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 judgment reads as follows:
3. Pursuant to the judgment, the petitioner was paid 75% of the arrears of wages. It is pertinent to note that, in the aforesaid judgment, there was a categoric finding that the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.2.1988 would be counted for all consequential benefits. However, despite Ext.P3, after the retirement of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order wherein the full pension of the petitioner was not sanctioned. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent. Exts.P11 and P12 representations were also filed before respondents 3 and 4 respectively. When no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court seeking directions.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 in which it was specifically averred in paragraph No.4 as follows:
5. The petitioner had raised a further claim of refund of Rs.40,051/-towards the retirement benefits. However, the said claim of the petitioner towards the aforesaid amount
Judicial decisions regarding employee benefits must be honored, and periods of service recognized by the court cannot be disregarded by administrative bodies in pension calculations.
The court established that legal entitlements to pension benefits cannot be denied based on procedural arguments when prior judgments have recognized such entitlements, reinforcing the principle of e....
The court affirmed that the entire service period must be considered for pension calculation, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling statutory obligations.
Retiral benefit like gratuity being a property right as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution, the right to gratuity or pension can be deprived or forfeited or withheld only by a statutory pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to have their past services counted for pensionary benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of pension to daily wagers should be calculated from the date of their initial appointments, as per the Government Resolution dat....
The entire past services of daily-wager are liable to be reckoned for pensionary benefits, and the calculation of pension should consider the years with 240 days of service as per the Industrial Disp....
Pension is a right vested in an employee, not a discretionary benefit, and financial difficulties of an employer do not justify withholding it.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
