Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
BENNY P.C. – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ….....................................
W.A.No.1609 of 2024 …............................................................ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT P.V. Balakrishnan, J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.26426 of 2018, challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2024 dismissing his writ petition.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner commenced service as LD Clerk in the Department of Agriculture with effect from 08.01.1992. While serving as UD Clerk in the said department, he was selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission as Junior Assistant/Cashier in KSEB, and he was allowed to join KSEB with effect from 04.09.2001. Subsequently, the KSEB retrenched 14 staffs, including the appellant, citing dearth of vacancies, with effect from the afternoon of 31.07.2003. Thereafter, on the basis of a represe
Service continuity impacts entitlement to employment benefits under specific settlement provisions.
Prior government service must be considered for pension computation if previously established by legal precedent.
Petitioner's previous service must be reconsidered, ensuring due consideration of relevant judicial precedents upheld by the court.
A court may allow pension benefits by recognizing prior daily wage service despite the absence of regularization, emphasizing principles of justice and judicial precedents.
Retrospective amendments to pension rules cannot divest vested rights of retired employees regarding pension calculations.
Only regular full-time service qualifies for pension; leave vacancy service does not count under the amended rules effective at the time of retirement.
Claims for service benefits must be raised during service; belated claims post-retirement are not permissible.
Pension eligibility cannot be claimed without meeting statutory service requirements and timely judicial action against employment decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to have their past services counted for pensionary benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and ....
Interruption in service of an employee will not count for pension: Provided that regular service before interruption is eligible to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension and period of such in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article