IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1339 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.1090/2000 Dated 23/10/2007 .................... APPELLANTS 1 TO 3/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (E) RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER IN OP / RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3/ RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN OP ------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.RAJENDRAN, PAYOOR HOUSE KODUMUNA P.O., PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRICT 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD. 3. THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS SRI. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 1339 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first appellant was the first respondent in the original petition. The first respondent herein was the petitioner. The original petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P8 order, as per which, the first appellant decided, inter alia, to discontinue the monthly pension paid to the first respondent. 2. The first respondent joined appellant's service on 27.1.1987 as Junior Assistant Grade I. He submitted technical resignation on 20.2.97 to join on 21.2.1997 as HSA in Government High School, Pattambi, pursuant to the advice of the Kerala Publis Service Commission. Later, he claimed he may be given pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him under the appellant Rubber Board. That prayer was granted as per Ext.P6 proceedings dated 3.3.1999. Later the appellant had second thoughts while considering the representation dated 23.4.1999, filed by the first respondent, seeking enhancement of his pensionary benefits. The appellant took the view that it need not pay pensionary benefits to an employee who got absorbed in State Government service and it need only pay the pro-rata benefits for the service rendered. In that view of the W.A. NO.1339/08 2 matter, the appellant Rubber Board passed Ext.P8 proceedings dated 25.11.1999 deciding to pay pro-rata retirement benefits to the State Government after recovering the amounts already paid by it to him by way of gratuity, monthly pension, commuted value of pension etc. Challenging Ext.P8 the original petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P8 and declared that the first respondent is entitled to get pensionary benefits from the appellant. It was also ordered that his past service under the appellant shall not be reckoned by the State Government for any service benefits. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal is filed by the Rubber Board. According to the Board, the relevant orders provide only for payment of pro rata pensionary benefits to the State Government for the benefit of the first respondent. They are willing to do that. But by mistake the appellant started paying monthly pension directly to him. In view of the orders governing the field, the course of action directed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and unsustainable, it is submitted. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the state officials. The learned Government pleader brought to our notice G.O.(P) No.212/09/Fin. dated 3.6.2009 as per which the State Government has decided not to receive any pro rata pensionary benefits from the central W.A. NO.1339/08 3 government undertakings in relation to those who join State Government service. In the light of the said decision, we are told that steps are afoot to amend Note 2 below Rule 11 of Part III KSR. The said Government Order reads as follows: ORDER “As per the Government Orders read above, Government have ordered that the employees of State Government Departments who left the former service in Central Government/Central Public Sector Undertakings on their own volition for taking up appointment in State Government Departments will be allowed to reckon their prior service for all pensionary benefits along with the service in the State Government Departments, subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, this provision has also been incorporated in Note 2 below rule 11, Part III, KSRs. 2. In the letter read 3rd above, Accountant General has pointed out that there are no rules on Central side permitting to share proportionate pension liability between Central Government and / Central Public Sector Undertakings and hence the previous service in Public Sector Undertakings is not counted for pensionary benefits along with Central Government service. 3. The State Government have adopted the Central Government rules/orders in this regard as a reciprocal arrangement and inadvertently orders were issued to reckon the prior service in Central Public Sector Undertakings also. 4. Since the orders issued in the Government Orders read above and the rules incorporated in Note2, below Rule 11, Part III KSRs are not in conformity with the Central Government orders/rules, in partial modification of the Government Orders read above and the rule mentioned above, Government Order that only the prior service in Central Government shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. This shall have retrospective effect from 12.11.2002. However, cases already settled need not be re-opened. Necessary amendments to KSRs will be issued shortly.” W.A. NO.1339/08 4 5. In view of this development, it will not be possible to pay pro rata pensionary benefits relating to the first respondent by the appellant Rubber Board to the State Government and the State Government will not count the past service of the first respondent for granting pensionary benefits. So in view of the above facts, the prayer of the appellant cannot be granted. Though the Kerala Service Rules are yet to be amended in time with the above order, the amendments will be notified very soon with effect from 12.11.2002. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps W.A. NO.1339/08 5