Service rendered in central public sector undertakings by government employees retiring after 12.11.2002 cannot be reckoned for pensionary benefits under the Kerala Service Rules, rendering claims for pro-rata pension contributions from such undertakings unsustainable.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant-Rubber Board has approached this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge because it has mulcted them with the liability of sharing the amount of pension due to the 1st respondent on a pro-rata basis, for a certain period he served with them, prior to entering the service of the Government of Kerala.

2. Sri.Issac Thomas – learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, argued that, though his client has approached this Court on the assertion that they are not liable to honour the pro-rata portion of pension eligible to the 1st respondent, the situation has been totally altered on account of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jose Cyriac [2024 (2) KLT 334]. He pointed out that, in the judgment, the declaration is that the respondent is not entirely to have his past service with the ‘Rubber Board’ reckoned for pension. He contended that, therefore, not only is his client not liable to make any payment towards pension of the respondent, but a situation has arisen where the latter would not be even able to reckon that period which he served his client for such purpose.

3. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai – learned counsel for the 1st respondent, conceded that, in Jose Cyriac (supra), the declaration is as asserted by the appellant. He argued that, nevertheless, since the judgment was delivered much after the date on which his client retired, he is entitled to the relief as granted by the learned Single Judge.

4. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore contention of Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai because, in Jose Cyriac (supra), the learned Division Bench has adverted to the amendment to Note 2 Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), to find that since central public sector undertakings have been excluded from its purview, no government employee retiring after 12.11.2002 would be entitled to have the period spent by them in the service of such undertakings reckoned for their pension.

5. Moreover, even accepting that the appellant is an autonomous body – as asserted by the 1st respondent which is fully accepted by the former – the situation would be no different because, the learned Bench has further clarified that the above declaration would apply to such service also.

6. It is thus ineluctable that, as matters now stand, the 1st respondent cannot seek to reckon the period he spent in the ‘Rubber Board’ for his pensionary benefits. Axiomatically, the question whether the ‘Rubber Board’ is liable to make any pro-rata payment becomes redundant and unnecessary.

In such circumstances, we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment; however, clarifying that it is not because we have entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions, but being guided by the judgment in Jose Cyriac (supra).

Needless to say, all benefits entitled to the 1st respondent based on his service in the Government will certainly be entitled to him, notwithstanding the afore observations.