IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 34 of 2006() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.18706/2002 Dated 06/09/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER. ---------------------- M.C.THOMAS, MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O. PAMBAKUDA VIA, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT. ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, ST.JOHNS SYRIAN HIGH SCHOOL, VADAKARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA K.FOR R1 SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 34 of 2006 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Petitioner was appointed as a part-time menial from 25.1.1968 to 28.3.1968 in the second respondent’s school. The above temporary service was approved by the educational authorities. One M.C. Chacko, a part-time menial of the school, took leave preparatory to his retirement. In the year 1973, petitioner applied to get appointment to that post. On a wrong interpretation of rule 51A, Chapter XIV-A, Kerala Education Rules, the Manager refused to give him that post and appointed a fresh hand. Even though educational authorities upheld his right, he was not given appointment till 16.7.1993. Later, he got appointment as a full-time menial and he continued in service. He retired on 30.9.2002. He filed various representations. Finally, by Ext.P1, his representation was partly allowed and he was declared to be entitled for being treated as deemed to be in service as part-time/full-time menial in the educational agency from 1974 onwards for the limited purpose of treating his service for pension as qualifying service for pension. The relevant portion is quoted as follows: "..... In the circumstances, Government consider that the petitioner should have been appointed in the first available vacancy itself. Here, in this case, the W.A.No. 34/2006 2 first available vacancy had arisen in 1973 against which appointment was made by the management in 1974. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioner is contained in Ext.P1 representation dated 22.10.1998 is allowed and he is declared to be entitled for being treated as deemed to be in service as part- time/full-time menial in the educational agency from 1974 onwards for the limited purpose of treating the above service as qualifying service for pension." His service for the period from 1974 onwards was allowed as qualifying service for pension and not for any other purpose. It is true that there was no order to appoint him only notionally from 19.11.1974 and grant him grade benefits or service benefits. If that be so, after 1994, when he got the appointment, he should have been fixed in a higher grade, but, that was not granted. He accepted Ext.P1 order. On that basis, he made further representations and Government by Ext.P6 order held that the appellant will be entitled only to pension on the ground that he was deemed to be in service from 1974 onwards. That will not make him eligible to higher grade in that post. Ext.P1 is not challenged by him. It is very clearly stated in Ext.P1 that the period from 1974 will be treated only for the limited purpose of treating the above service as qualifying service for pension. There is no order in Ext.P1 to give him appointment from 1974 and give him benefits and fixation of salary if he was appointed in 1974. Consequential appointment was not made. Therefore, he will be entitled to pension on the basis of last drawn salary actually received by him. But, pension and retiral benefits can be calculated as he had service from 1974. According to the learned W.A.No. 34/2006 3 Government Pleader what is granted in Ext.P1 itself is passed taking a lenient view. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to get any further relief. Ext.P1 is correctly interpreted in Ext.P6. Appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa W.A.No. 34/2006 4 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No.34/2006 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:20th August, 2008