The classification of provisional service does not qualify for pension benefits under the applicable government rules and existing case law.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.1062 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner entered Government service under the 2^nd respondent as Overseer Grade II on 06.09.1983 on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) and superannuated on 30.04.2005 after the qualifying service of 21 years, 7 months and 25 days. Before entering the Government service, she worked as a Work Superintendent in the Municipal Common Service from 01.07.1981 to 05.09.1983, through the employment exchange.

2.1. The provisional service rendered by the petitioner in the Municipal Common Service was not reckoned for pension and Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, in view of Annexure A3 Government Order dated 25.11.1999. Though the petitioner submitted various representations in the matter, the respondents are taking a stand that the provisional service rendered by the petitioner cannot be reckoned for pension and other benefits, for the reason that the regular service, if any, in the Government Department alone can be reckoned for such benefits. The petitioner submitted Annexure A4 representation dated 04/2014 to the respondents, requesting to reckon her provisional service in the Municipal Common Service as qualifying service for pension. Vide Annexure A5 letter dated 09.02.2015, the Government agreed to the claim of the petitioner. Since nothing was heard in the matter, the petitioner queried the status of her Annexure A4 representation under the Right to Information Act, to which the 1^st respondent replied by Annexure A6 letter dated 27.03.2005 informing that the direction in Annexure A5 letter is under review before the Government. Later, by Annexure A7 letter dated 11.12.2015, the Government informed the 2^nd respondent that as the Municipal Common Service and Government service are quite different in qualifications, mode of appointment and scale of pay and also the service of the petitioner in Municipal Common Service was provisional, the past provisional Municipal Common Service of the petitioner cannot be reckoned for qualifying service for pension. It is further stated that as per Rule 4(a) of Part III KSR no claim for pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for limited time only or for specific duty on the completion of which she is to be discharged and hence the provisional service rendered by the petitioner in Municipal Common Service prior to her entry in Government service cannot be reckoned for pension along with her regular service. This fact was informed to the petitioner by the Government by Annexure A8 letter dated 08.01.2016. Contending that in a similar case, the Government reckoned the provisional service rendered by an Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD as Lecturer by Annexure A9 order dated 14.12.2009, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Call for the records leads to Annexure A7 and A8 and quash the same.

(ii) Declare that the provisional service rendered by the applicant for the period from 01.0