IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2038 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22188/2006 Dated 21/08/2006 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------ K.J.GEORGE, HEADMASTER (RETD.), KALLATTU, MONIPALLY- P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.2038 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is a retired Headmaster of a U.P.School. He has continuous service from 2.8.1961 as Headmaster. He reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.1982. So, he was granted pensionary benefits taking into account his qualifying service as 22 years. But, petitioner submits he had some earlier spells of service commencing from 2.6.1952. But, there were service breaks between 2.6.1963 and 25.3.1964 and thereafter between 1966 and 1969. The petitioner moved the Government for reckoning the above broken periods of service after condoning the breaks in service mentioned above. The Government allowed the said prayer as per Ext.P4 order dated 1.10.1985. The said order reads as follows: “In the circumstances reported by the Director of Public Instruction in his letter read above, sanction is accorded for W.A.No.2038/2006 2 reckoning of the broken periods of service from 2.6.1952 to 19.6.1953, 26.3.1954 to 14.9.1956 and from 1.9.1959 to 31.3.1960 (Total 4 years 1 month and 8 days) for the purpose of pensionary benefits by condoning the breaks in service from 15.9.1956 to 14.9.1958 and from 15.9.1958 to 31.8.1959 (Total 3 years 10 months and 4 days) of Shri.K.J.George, Retd. Headmaster, Holy Cross H.S.Monippally in terms of the guidelines issued in Government letter No.20887/J2/78/G.Edn. dated 15.9.1978.” 2. The above order would show that a total period of four years one month and 8 days made up of different spells of broken service was ordered to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Government also condoned the breaks of service between 15.9.1956 and 14.9.1958 and between 15.9.1958 and 31.8.1959. But, the petitioner's grievance was that the benefit of that order was never given to him. His pensionary benefits were computed and disbursed taking his qualifying service as only 22 years. If the earlier broken spell of service ordered to be reckoned as per Ext.P4 is also taken into account, there will be substantial revision of his pension. This Court by Ext.P5 W.A.No.2038/2006 3 judgment directed the 1st respondent to consider his claim for implementation of Ext.P4. In obedience to that Ext.P6 order was passed. The petitioner's claim was rejected by Ext.P6. He approached this Court challenging Ext.P6. This Court quashed the said order and again remitted the matter to the Government for fresh decision in accordance with law as per Ext.P7 judgment. Finally, the Government have passed Ext.P9. His grievance regarding non-implementation of Ext.P4 was taken note of by the Government, it was held that the said order is already implemented and his contention to the contrary is incorrect. The said portion of the order reads as follows: “It has become evident from the records that the broken periods of service of the petitioner from 2.6.1952 to 19.6.1953, 26.3.1954 to 14.9.1956 and from 1.9.1959 to 31.3.1960 have been taken into account for sanctioning pensionary benefits as ordered in G.O.(Rt) 3612/85/GE Dated 1.10.1985. So the allegation that Government has not taken into account his claim under Annexure A3 (Ext.P4 in the O.P.) does not appear to be correct.” W.A.No.2038/2006 4 3. Even thereafter, the pension of the petitioner remained the very same as it was granted originally. So, again the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court challenging Ext.P9. In this case, the Government have filed a statement, in which it is submitted that taking the aforementioned spells of service also, the petitioner's pension has been revised from Rs.305/- to Rs.360/- as per Government letter No. PR4/Rev/299/Z/85-86/628 Dated 161.1986. It is also stated that the petitioner's qualifying service has been taken as 26 years. So, the petitioner's grievance stands redressed. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even now, he is drawing the pension sanctioned with 22 years as qualifying service and he handed over a copy of the pension revision authorisation dated 20.11.2007, as per which the qualifying service of the petitioner is only 22 years. 4. If the claim of the respondent is that the petitioner's pension has been revised in the light of Ext.P4, as per letter No.P6-88901/84 dated 1.6.1985, is not correct, the petitioner is entitled to get the revised pension including the arrears thereof W.A.No.2038/2006 5 with reasonable interest. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider the above grievance of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce the copy of the pension revision authorisation and also the statement filed by the respondent in this case before the Government. The Government shall verify whether actually his pensionary benefits were revised and released to him, if not, the Government shall order release of revised pension with arrears to him with 6% interest. The said amount shall be paid to him within one month after the decision of the Government. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps