A court may allow pension benefits by recognizing prior daily wage service despite the absence of regularization, emphasizing principles of justice and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.2182 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’, in short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P4 order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2182 of 2018 invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A10 order dated 03.09.2018 issued by the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner, praying to reckon his entire service in Kerala State Land Use Board (‘KSLUB’ in short) from 01.04.1998 till he was regularised in service on 25.08.2005 for pensionary benefits. The petitioner has further sought an order directing the respondents to modify Annexure A5 order dated 25.08.2005 issued by the Government sanctioning creation of six supernumerary posts of Geological Assistants in KSLUB to accommodate the senior Scientists working on contract basis with effect from 01.04.1998; and also an order directing the respondents to modify Annexure A7 order dated 12.10.2011 regularising the petitioner in the KSLUB with effect from 01.04.1998.

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Stipendary Earth Scientist for the Panchayath level Resources Mapping Programme in accordance with G.O.(MS) No.48/90/Plg. dated 15.12.1990 in the Centre for Earth Science (‘CESS’ in short) from 22.04.1991 onwards. The Panchayat Resources Mapping (‘PRM’ in short) was done by the CESS till 31.03.1998, which was later transferred to KSLUB under the Planning Board. As directed by the Government, he reported in the KSLUB on 01.04.1998 in the post of Project Scientist. He was appointed as Senior Scientist in KSLUB on 22.04.1999 after undergoing a selection process, including an interview. The 1^st respondent by Annexure A7 order dated 12.10.2011 regularised his service from 25.08.2005. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2018. Before his retirement, he approached the Government, praying to reckon his entire service in KSLUB from 01.04.1998 for pensionary benefits, and also filed O.A. No.448 of 2018 before the Tribunal, which was disposed directing the Government to pass appropriate orders on his representation. The 1^st respondent by Annexure A10 order dated 03.09.2018 rejected his claim. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the present original application.

4. In the original application on behalf of the 1strespondent, a reply statement dated 14.08.2019 was filed opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 25.09.2019.

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 18.12.2019, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 7, 8 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“7. Heard both sides. The applicant relies on the judgment in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A11. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider an appeal filed by a Pump Operator from Chhattisgarh. He worked on a temporary basis from 01.04.1986 till he was regularised on 06.05.2008 and retired from service on 30.07.2011. His claim for gratuity during the period of temporary service had been allowed by t