Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
P.K. Jayan, S/o.Unniparavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 19868 of 2024
Decided on : 09-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV V.MADHUSUDHANAN
For the Respondent: SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that pension eligibility under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme is strictly governed by the retirement status, distinguishing between superannuation and voluntary retirement due to disability.
Headnote:
Pension - Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme - 46A, 46B - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for pension under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, emphasizing that only those who retire on superannuation are entitled to benefits under paragraph 46A, while those who retire due to disability are governed by paragraph 46B.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Goods Auto Driver, sought to enhance his pension under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme after being diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and retiring due to ill health, claiming entitlement based on his service duration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for pension under paragraph 46A as he retired voluntarily before reaching the age of superannuation, and thus was only entitled to benefits under paragraph 46B.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a higher pension under paragraph 46A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme despite retiring before superannuation due to disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme clearly delineate pension eligibility based on retirement status, and the petitioner, having retired voluntarily, could only claim benefits under paragraph 46B.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner, who is a Goods Auto Driver, is before this Court seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to enhance the pension of the petitioner authorised under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, taking into account the length of service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner states that while he was engaged as Goods Auto Driver, he was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Stage III. As the petitioner was unable to carry on with his occupation due to ill health, he applied to retire from the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. His request was allowed as per Ext.P4.
3. The petitioner states that as per paragraph 46A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, a member of the Scheme who is having not less than 10 years of completed service on superannuation shall be eligible for pension. As per paragraph 46A(2), a member of the Scheme on becoming completely disabled to do his work as a Motor Transport Worker shall be entitled to a minimum pension of Rs.500/- irrespective of the length of service, if not otherwise entitled for pension under subparagraph (1).
4. The petitioner states that he has rendered more than 10 years of service and therefore he is entitled to receive the minimum pension of Rs.3,500/- upon his retirement. However, the petitioner has been granted only Rs.1,600/- as disability pension. As the petitioner is undergoing treatment for his ill-fated disease, the amount he receives as pension is insufficient to meet his bare minimum expenses. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Chief Minister of Kerala. However, the 3rd respondent-Chief Executive Officer of the Board has informed the petitioner that the decision to enhance the petitioner's pension would only be made, only if the Government increases the disability pension, since the petitioner is presently receiving disability pension.
5. The petitioner states that non-enhancement of the pension payable to the petitioner upon his retirement from the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was a member of the Welfare Fund Scheme from the year 2006 to 2016. As per paragraph 46A of the Scheme, workers with not less than 10 years of service are entitled to receive pension. The petitioner was forced to exit the Welfare Fund Scheme due to his treatment. Therefore, denial of full pension to the petitioner is illegal and unjust.
6. Respondents 2 to 4 resisted the writ petition. The respondents stated that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of paragraph 46A of the Scheme. The petitioner took voluntary retirement before reaching the age of superannuation. Therefore, he is eligible only to the benefit under paragraph 46B.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.
8. Chapter VI(A) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985 makes provision for payment of pension. Paragraphs 46A and 46B read as follows:
46A. Eligibility for pension:- A member of the Fund who is having not less than ten years of completed service on superannuation shall be eligible for pension under this Chapter:
Provided that a member of the Fund who is not having ten completed years of service but is having nine and half or more completed years of service shall be deemed to have completed ten years of service for the purpose of eligibility for pension.
46B. Rate of pension:- (1) A member of the Fund on superannuation shall be entitled for a minimum pension of 500 per month members having more than ten completed years of service shall be entitled for enhanced pension at the rate of Rs.25/- per month for stage carriage (Heavy vehicle) stage carriage (Light vehicle), Contract carriage & Luxury buses, Goods vehicle (Heavy) & Goods vehicle (Medium), & at the enhanced
