IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25406 of 2010 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- YASODHARAN.K., KALLANVILA VEEDU, CHEMMAKKADAVU P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, . 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA TAILORING WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, TC 2/2447 C R COMPLEX, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA TAILORING WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM 695 001 . R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER C.R.SYAMKUMAR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25406 of 2010 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-3-2007, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER ON A PERMANENT BASIS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2009, DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.30660/2009. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RE-APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 3-11-1998. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE amk C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 25406 OF 2010-A ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a handicapped person who is assessed to have 43% permanent partial physical disability. He had worked as Peon on provisional basis in the office of the 3rd respondent from 03-10-1997 to 27-04-1998. Subsequently he was given permanent appointment as Peon in the Kollam District office of the 2nd respondent Board as per Ext.P1 Government order G.O (MS) No.39/07/LABOUR dated 27-03-2007. The petitioner had satisfactorily completed the probation. The petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation, on 31-03-2010. After retirement the petitioner claimed terminal benefits as well as pension. Complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 are not considering such claims and the petitioner is not sanctioned any terminal benefits or pension. Hence the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to W.P.(c) No.25406/2010 -2- provide monthly pension to the petitioner and also to disburse terminal benefits such as DCRG, commuted value of pension etc., without any delay. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioner was in the service of the Board from 11-06-2007 to 31-03-2010. But it is stated that since the Government have not framed any Special Rules and since the Board has not adopted the Kerala Service Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. However, it is stated that the petitioner was directed to submit application for option to get pensionary benefits subject to orders of the Government and the option submitted in this regard was forwarded to the Government. It is further stated that the total strength of the Board is 81 and 76 employees are appointed on hire basis from various Government Departments (deputees under foreign employment scheme). The remaining 5 employees are in the regular service of the Board. It is also mentioned that a proposal submitted by the Board for W.P.(c) No.25406/2010 -3- framing Special Rules has not been finalized by the Government and only after getting orders from the Government the benefits if any can be disbursed to the petitioner. The 1st respondent/Government has also filed counter affidavit adopting more or less same contentions. It is stated that pensionary benefits will be admissible only when there is specific provision for the same as per rules of the institution concerned. In the absence of such rules the 2nd respondent is not liable to grant pension to the petitioner. It is contended that regularisation itself will not confer any legitimate right to claim pension from the institution where there is no pension rules adopted. 3. Sri. Vinoy Vargheese Kallummoottil, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that regularisation of the petitioner was effected on the basis of a scheme formulated by the Government directing all Government Departments and the Autonomous bodies to regularise handicapped temporary employees working on provisional basis on a compassionate ground, considering the Golden W.P.(c) No.25406/2010 -4- Jubilee year of Independence. Since regularisation of the petitioner is on the basis of a scheme formulated by the Government, the petitioner is entitled for pension and other terminal benefits which are applicable to Government service, is the contention. It is further contended that denial of pension and other benefits to an employee who was in the regular service of the Welfare Board, which is a limb of the Government, is totally illegal and unjustifiable. Learned counsel had also placed a Government order G.O (P) No.897/96/Fin dated 08-11-1996 wherein it is ordered that physically handicapped persons who are working in various posts in the service of the State were sanctioned with minimum pension for those who are having minimum period of 3 years qualifying service. But, I notice that the said order is issued with respect to employees working in the service of the State Government. 4. While considering the issue it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not in a position to point out any statutory right through which he is entitled to claim pension W.P.(c) No.25406/2010 -5- and other benefits. Admittedly, the terms and conditions of service with respect to the employees in the 2nd respondent Board does not provide any provision for payment of pension or any terminal benefits. The fact remains that the 2nd respondent Board has neither adopted Kerala Service Rules nor any Special Rules has been framed yet. Since the petitioner is not in a position to make claim for pension and other benefits on the basis of any statutory right, this court is not in position to issue any specific direction in this regard. 4. However, since it is stated by the respondents that introduction of Special Rules for employees under the Board is under consideration, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority. If any such Rules are framed and if such rules provides pension or other benefits, the petitioner can claim such benefits. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the W.P.(c) No.25406/2010 -6- petitioner to claim benefits if any provided under Special Rules if any framed. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to move the Government for framing Special Rules and for payment of pension and other benefits. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge