Prior Central Government service may be recognized for pension benefits despite breaks in service under specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner, initially worked with the Central Government for the period from 29.08.1986 till 03.11.1989. Thereafter, he was appointed at the S.B. College, Changanacherry, as a Lecturer, though in a leave vacancy, with effect from 09.11.1989. He continued in the afore leave vacancy till 31.10.1990. Later, he was appointed to a substantive vacancy in the very same College, with effect from 20.06.1991, and continued in service till 28.02.2016, on which day he superannuated. The petitioner prayed for reckoning his prior Central Government service, noticed as above, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, etc. By Ext.P4 dated 06.12.2022, the petitioner was informed that, insofar as there was no mobility between the Central Government Service and the State Government service, the prayer of the petitioner could not be considered. This decision was further challenged by filing Ext.P5 representation dated 12.12.2022, before the Government. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment dated 09.01.2023, in W.P.(C) No.480 of 2023, the Government was directed to consider and pass orders on the afore application, with specific reference to the principles laid down inState of Kerala v. Haridasan [2015(2) KLT 145 (FB)]. Pursuant to the afore direction, by Ext.P7 order dated 08.06.2023, the Government took the stand that since the petitioner joined in a leave vacancy in the S.B.College, Changanacherry, for the period from 09.11.1989 till 31.10.1990, the prayer could not be accepted with reference to the provisions of Rule 29(b) Part-III Kerala Service Rules (KSR). The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 by filing the captioned writ petition, also placing reliance on Ext.P8 Government Order dated 24.09.2014. This Court, originally, by a judgment dated 20.06.2024, accepted the claim made by the petitioner, taking into account the Government Order at Ext.P8 as well as Ext.P9 judgment dated 21.02.2023 in W.P.(C) No.42406 of 2022. However, the Government filed a review petition (R.P. No.1135 of 2024) before this Court, pointing out that the break period could not be taken into account for the reason that there was a break in service for the period from 01.11.1990 to 19.06.1991. Taking note of this, by judgment dated 15.11.2024 in R.P.

No.1135 of 2024, this Court recalled the judgment disposing of the writ petition for fresh consideration. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition has been posted before me.

2. I have heard Sri.S.Muhammed Haneeff, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.

3. The short issue arising for consideration, as noticed earlier, is as to whether the Central Government service of the petitioner could also be reckoned along with the regular full- time aided college service in S.B. College, Changanacherry, for the calculation of the pensionary benefits.

4. Sri.Muhammed Haneeff, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, would point out that with reference to the mandate under Ext.P8, the sandwich period could be condoned, and the benefits of Central Government service could also be reckoned for extending the pensionary benefits. He would also point out that Ext.P9 judgment dated 21.02.2023 in W.P.(C) No.42406 of 2022, of a learned Single Judge of this Court, noticed earlier, has since been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1836 of 2023 .

5. Per contra, Smt.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader, would submit that Ext.P8 could not be reckoned since, admittedly, there was a break in service, as noticed earlier. Furthermore, it was only in a situation where there is no break in service, that the power of condonation, as extended by Ext.P8, could be extended. She would also rely on the pr