IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 11952 of 2003(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, THALAPPAN HOUSE, KALLIASSERI CENTRAL, P.O.ANCHAMPEDIKA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN MR.T.P.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. 20502/2003 IN OP. NO.11952/2003 CLOSED 15.06.2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- LETTER NO.G.693/98 DT. 11.10.98. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.D.DIS 26456/68/SY. OF THE DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS 11.9.68. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 4.7.91. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.13769/89/RD DT. 27.12.91. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24.10.01 IN WA. 1460/98. P6:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.564/89/FIN. 29.11.89. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER, K.P.PARVATHY AMMA. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18.5.02. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 11952 of 2003 W --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's father had retired from service on 30.4.1976 at the age of 60 years while he was working as Full Time Contingent Chainman in Survey and Land Revenue Department. This writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia to quash Ext.P8 order of the respondent by which the request of the petitioner for retirement benefit connected with the service of his father was declined. It is also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner all the pensionary benefits including the arrears of pension and family pension in respect of the service of late K.Narayanan Nambiar- his father. 2. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner's father initially worked as IInd Grade Warder in the Central Prison as per Ext.P1 for a period from 9.3.1946 to 4.11.1947 and 13.5.1958 to 12.8.1958. After the said period, he was terminated from service. But, subsequently, on the basis of his representation, the Government appointed him in contingent post in other Department. Thus, according to the OP NO.11952 of 2003 :-2-: petitioner, as per Ext.P2, his father was appointed as Full Time Contingent Chainman in Survey and Land Revenue Department and he joined duty as on 23.9.1968. Thereafter, he had worked up to 30.4.1976 on which date he was retired on his attaining the age of 60. The petitioner's mother preferred Ext.P3 representation for retirement benefit, and that request was declined by the Department as per Ext.P4 order. Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner's mother moved O.P.No.5876 of 1992 and in that writ petition, the benefit of Ext.P6 Government Order was sought. But, the learned single Judge was not inclined to grant the relief and on dismissing the writ petition, a writ appeal was preferred which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, asked the Department to consider the claim in the light of Ext.P6 Government Order. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation. After considering Ext.P7 representation, the Department issued Ext.P8 order by which the request was declined on the ground that the petitioner's father was not having minimum qualifying service. It is, in this third round, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. OP NO.11952 of 2003 :-3-: 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 4. The entire claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefit is based upon Ext.P6 Government Order produced in this writ petition. In Ext.P8, it is stated that the benefit of Ext.P6 order cannot be extended in the case of the father of the petitioner as he was not in service from the date of the Government Order. Ext.P6 Government Order is dated 29.11.1989. Petitioner's father retired from service on 30.4.1976. Going by Ext.P6, it can be seen that the facts and circumstances involved in the case are not sufficient to invoke the benefit conferred by Ext.P6 Government Order. By Ext.P8 order, Ext.P7 representation was considered in the light of Ext.P6 order and the request was declined by assigning sufficient reasons. The reasons assigned are in accordance with law and the Government Orders on the subject. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is illegal or incorrect. OP NO.11952 of 2003 :-4-: In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ OP NO.11952 of 2003 :-5-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 11952 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 15-6-2009 OP NO.11952 of 2003 :-6-: