IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
DAISY P.T. – Respondent
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016 | W.P.(C) No. 2087 of 2012
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal initiated against the quashing of a prior judgment regarding pension contributions. (Para 1) |
| 2. first respondent inquired about pension qualification for prior service in the public sector. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court evaluated the precedent case and upheld the overruled status of relevant laws. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. the court noted the absence of the respondents during proceedings. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 20.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 2087 of 2012, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by quashing Ext. P7 and directing the appellant to remit the pro- rata pension contribution, in respect of the service rendered by the first respondent, to the Kerala State Electricity Board Staff Pension Fund within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2. The first respondent/petitioner herein had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P7 letter No. KWA/HO/E10/2495/2011 dated 23-
8-2011 as it is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory;
ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 3rd respondent to remit pro-rata pension contribution in respect of the service rendered by the Petitioner in the Kerala State Electricity Board Staff Pension Fund;
iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to reckon the service rendered by the Petitioner in Kerala Water Authority for weightage and pensionery benefits in K.S.E.B., iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that, prior to joining the Kerala State Electricity Board, the first respondent was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority. She was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority on 18.04.1992, as advised by the Public Service Commission. She continued in service with the Kerala Water Authority until 17.01.1994 and, on the very same day, joined the Kerala State Electricity Board without any break in service. The Kerala State Electricity Board had decided to reckon the service rendered by a Board employee in a State Government Department or quasi-Government organisation prior to her appointment or absorption in the Kerala State Electricity Board as qualifying service for the purpose of sanctioning pensionary benefits under the Board. 3.1 The first respondent submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, requesting that her previous service in the Kerala Water Authority be reckoned for the purpose of computing pension and weightage. Subsequently, the said representation was considered and decided vide Ext. P1, whereby a clarification was issued stating that an employee having qualifying service of less than five years would be eligible only for service gratuity, calculated at the rate of one month’s pay for each year of qualifying service. It was further clarified that where the qualifying service is less than ten years, the employee would not be entitled to pension, but only to service gratuity and Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), based on the length of qualifying service. The pro-rata pension liability was required to be remitted in lump sum as a one-time payment and was to be determined with reference to the computation table laid down in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the first respondent submitted Ext. P6 representation to the Kerala Water Authority/the appellant, requesting the remittance of the pro-rata pension liability to the Kerala State Electricity Board Staff Pension Fund. However, the appellant, vide Ext. P7 letter, stated that there was no order or rule permitting the reckoning of prior service in a Public Sec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.