IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22888 of 2006(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- C.SUSHEELA, 1ST GRADE DRAUGHTSMAN (RTD.), SREEKANTH NIVAS, THEKKETHIRUMANGALAM, KADAVATTARAM, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PWD DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. P. NANDA KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22888 /2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION SLIP NO.P.13/Pen.A/328/81/05-06 FROM THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO.479/86/FIN. DATED 11/07/1986. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO.2357/99/FIN. DATED 25/11/1999. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2005 IN WP(C) NO.35488 OF 2005. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt.) NO.514/06/PWD DATED 21/07/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm P.N RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 22888 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. The petitioner in the writ petition who retired from service as First Grade Draughtsman has filed this writ petition contending that the provisional service rendered by him as Work Superintendent during the period from 1/07/1981 to 05/9/1983 should be reckoned for the grant of pensionary benefits. The request made by the petitioner in that regard was rejected by the Government by Exhibit P6 order dated 21/07/2006. 2. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was appointed on a provisional basis as Work Superintendent in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation during the period from 1/07/1981 to 5/9/1983. Thereafter she was appointed as Second Grade Draughtsman through the Kerala Public Service Commission on 6/9/1983. The scale of pay of the petitioner in the category of Second Grade Draughtsman was Rs.370-600. The scale of pay of Work Superintendent in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation was Rs.330-515. One of the W.P(C) No. 22888/2006 2 conditions for the applicability of Govt. Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part 1 of the KSR which stood deleted with effect from 1/10/1994 was that both posts should carry the same scale of pay. In the instant case, the post of Work Superintendent and the post of Second Grade Draughtsman did not carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, Govt. Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part 1 KSR has no application. If that be so, Exhibit P4 Government order dated 25/11/1999 which states that provisional service qualifying for the grant of increments will be reckoned for the purpose of pension also, can have no application. I am therefore of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the challenge to Exhibit P6. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE scm