IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16226 of 2003(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.M.JOHN, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, MECHERIL HOUSE, NAMBIARKULAM, KANAKKARI P.O., DISTRICT KOTTAYAM (RETD.HEADMASTER K.M.HIGH SCHOOL, KARULAI). BY MR.P.K.JACOB, ADVOCATE. MR.SUNILNATH N.B, ADVOCATE. MS.P.RANI DIOTHIMA, ADVOCATE. MR.P.A.KUMARAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. BY MR. MOHAMMED FAZIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16226/2003 Order on I.A.No.997/2003 in WP(C).No.16226/2003 Dismissed. 15.09.2009 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF LETTER No.F4/14593/98 DTD. 20.4.98 ISSUED BY R4. EXT. P2 : COPY OF CIRCULAR No.9/96/(78)/FIN. DTD. 14.2.96 ISSUED BY R1. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 28.6.01 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P4 : COPY OF LETTER No.61475/A2/2001/GL.EDN. DTD. 26.11.02 ISSUED BY R1 TO R3. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER No.B4/9776/2000 DTD. 13.2.03 ISSUED BY R5. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16226 OF 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The issue that is raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Philomina (2008(1) KLT 666). In the above judgment, the Full Bench has taken the view that prior military service can be reckoned only for granting first grade promotion and it cannot be reckoned for granting subsequent grade promotions. The following are the service particulars of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner joined the Indian Air force as an Airman on 04.11.1966 and was relieved on 23.07.1976. He joined as a High School Assistant on 24.07.1978. He was given Higher Grade promotion on 27.07.1979 reckoning his 9 years 6 months and 15 days of military service. The petitioner was given the next Higher Grade promotion as Senior Grade Teacher, after 10 years of service. He was promoted as Selection Grade Teacher W.P.(C) No.16226/2003 2 on 01.04.1994, after 5 years of service as Senior Grade Teacher. He became the Headmaster of the school on 01.04.1999 and retired from service on 31.05.2002. 3. While the petitioner was working as Selection Grade Teacher, by Exhibits P1 and P2, audit objections were communicated to him. The audit objections were raised based on paragraph 2(iii) of Circular No.9/96/(78)/Fin dated 14.02.1996 wherein it was prescribed that the military service which counts for civil pension will be reckoned for higher grade once with effect from 01.03.1992. Even though the petitioner submitted several representations, the same were not considered favourably and by Exhibit P4, they were rejected. 4. The Full Bench in State of Kerala vs. Philomina (2008 (1) KLT 666) held that “when concessions having financial implications are granted by the Government, widening the scope of such concessions by judicial interpretation would invite unexpected burden on the public exchequer. Time bound higher grade is not a condition of service guaranteed by statutory rules but a concession extended to employees who are stagnating in a W.P.(C) No.16226/2003 3 particular post for want of regular promotion...”. It was ultimately held in paragraph 4 that “the prior military service can be reckoned only for granting the first grade promotion. It cannot be reckoned for granting subsequent grade promotions...”. 5. The said principle will apply to the facts of this case also. Therefore, the challenge against Exhibits P1 and P2 fails. In I.A.No.997/2003, this Court had directed that the pensionary benefits admittedly due to the petitioner less deductions, if any, shall be released to him within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In the light of the above, no further orders are called for except to state that if any amount is further due less deductions, the same shall be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp