Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3533
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
SAJEEV JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA/146/2020
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.D.SREEKANTH SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA
Only uninterrupted service meets the criteria for pension eligibility under Rule 14E(b), which the appellant failed to satisfy.
Headnote:
Pension - Service Eligibility - Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985; Kerala Service Rules - Rule 14E(b) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act and the Kerala Service Rules to determine the eligibility of broken spells of service for pension, concluding that specific conditions outlined in Rule 14E(b) were not satisfied.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, after retiring as an Associate Professor, sought pensionary benefits claiming that his previous service, despite being in broken spells, should count towards qualifying service. The Accountant General's office denied this claim, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the applicability of Rule 14E(b) of the Kerala Service Rules, determining that the appellant did not meet the required conditions to reckon his previous broken service for pension benefits, and thus upheld the dismissal of the claim.
Issues: Whether the appellant's prior broken spells of service could be counted towards pensionary benefits under the relevant rules and statutes governing service conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that previous service rendered in broken spells preceding regular employment cannot be considered for pension calculations unless specific criteria outlined in Rule 14E(b) are met.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in WP(C).No.693 of 2019 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.07.2019 of the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
The appellant retired as an Associate Professor from the St.
Alosius College, Edathua, Alappuzha on 31.03.2018. He was initially appointed as provisional Lecturer English in the said college for the period from 05.01.1988 to 31.03.1988. The said appointment was duly approved by the Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University by Ext.P2 order dated 15.04.1988. The next spell of appointment of the appellant was for a period from 02.06.1988 to 30.08.1988, which spell of appointment was also approved by the Syndicate of the University. The appellant was, thereafter, again appointed for the period 31.08.1988 to 07.10.1988 as it borne out by Ext.P4 appointment order and the said appointment was also approved by Ext.P6 order dated 08.12.1988. Thereafter, he was again appointed for the period from 04.01.1989 to 31.05.1993 by Ext.P5 appointment order to a leave vacancy of Sri.Eapen Kurian P.E, Lecturer in English in the said college. The said appointment was also approved by Ext.P7 order dated 16.03.1989. Thereafter, with effect from 01.06.1993, the appellant was appointed to a regular retirement vacancy consequent to the retirement of Sri.K.V.Joseph, Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 01.06.1993. The said appointment of the appellant was also approved by Ext.P9 order dated 08.08.1994.
3. In the Writ Petition, the appellant/writ petitioner was aggrieved by the finding of the office of the Accountant General while admitting the pensionary benefits due to the appellant that the net qualifying service of the appellant was only 25 years, counting his regular pensionable service from 01.06.1993 to 31.03.2018. The appellant, therefore, preferred Ext.P11 representation pointing out that he had broken spells of service from 05.01.1988 onwards, and in particular, that the service rendered in the leave vacancy from 04.01.1989 to 31.05.1993 was immediately followed by the regular appointment with effect from 01.06.1993. While the appellant claimed continuous regular service from 05.01.1998 onwards for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the alternate contention was that at the very least the service from 04.01.1989 ought to count for such pensionary benefits since the service from that date onwards was continuous and uninterrupted till the date of retirement.
4. The representation preferred by the appellant did not find favour with the Accounts Officer under the Director of Collegiate Education, who by Ext.P12 communication informed the appellant that inasmuch as the various spells of service rendered by the appellant, prior to his regular appointment with effect from 01.06.1993, were against leave vacancies, his claim for reckoning the said service for the purposes of pension could not be accepted. In the Writ Petition, the appellant impugned Ext.P12 communication, inter alia, on the contention that inasmuch his past broken spells of service had been reckoned for the purposes of sanctioning increments in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, there was no justification for excluding the said broken spells of service for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
5. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court inShameer Ali v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education [2018 (3) KLT 925] , and found that, merely because the broken spells of service claimed by the appellant were reckoned for the purposes of increment, it did not follow that the said spells of service could be reckoned for the purposes of pensionary benefits. In particular, reference was made to the provisions of Rule 14E (b) of Part III Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSR'), which the learned Judge found applicable to the case of the appellant. Th
