IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28259 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.KRISHNAN NAMBIATHIRI, RESIDING AT ENAVALLIL ILLOM, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 5. C.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, VIGILANCE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER,SC, TDB FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.C.VIJAYAN, SC, TDB FOR RESPONDENTS SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB FOR R1-4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.9.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 28259/2004. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SERVICE BOOK. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.21.12.93 FROM R2. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.10.01 FROM R4. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.6.04 FROM R5. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.5.3.04 TO R4. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 28259 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as a Santhi of the Travancore Devaswom Board on 31.8.1993, after putting in more than 31 years of service. Under order of the Devaswom Board No.ROC No.1000/94/Estt. Dated 17.4.1998, persons who complete 30 years of service are entitled to a higher grade, which was granted to the petitioner. But proceedings were initiated for withdrawing the same on the ground that the petitioner did not actually have 30 years service, which resulted in Ext.P5 order, whereby the higher grade granted to the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled and the excess salary paid to the petitioner withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner did not start his service in 1952, but stared service only with effect from 5.12.1967. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order seeking the following reliefs; “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to and culminating in Ext.P5 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and opposed to the principles of natural justice. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to continue to disburse the pension benefits as granted in implementation of R.O.C.No. 1000/94/Estt. Dated 17.4.1998. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to continue to disburse the arrears of salary as allowable and due, in implementation of R.O.C.No.1000/94/Estt. Dated 17.4.1998. w.p.c.28259/04 2 iv. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the arrears and also for the costs not only of this proceedings but also for the expenses he met to comply with the direction in Ext.P4.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P1 service book of the petitioner, the petitioner entered service on 5.12.1952 and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for the respondents to even doubt that the petitioner entered service subsequently. According to the petitioner, the petitioner joined service on 5.12.1952 as acting Santhi and his services were regularised in that post on 1.10.1968. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. The learned standing counsel for the Board would contend that in an enquiry by the vigilance, the Assistant Commissioner admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he had wrongly entered the date of entry into service of the petitioner as 5.12.1952 instead of 5.12.1967 without orders from the Board and therefore there is nothing wrong in the action of the Board. 4. I cannot accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board insofar as no counter affidavit is on record challenging or disputing Ext.P1 service book of the petitioner. Therefore, I have no other option but to accept Ext.P1 as the copy of the service book of the petitioner, especially when the original is with the respondents and they have not chosen to either produce the same w.p.c.28259/04 3 before this Court or to produce a correct copy of the service book as the date of entry as 5.12.1967, if there is some other service book. I also do not find any merit in the contention raised by the respondents that when the original service book was later on reconstructed, the date of entry in service was wrongly entered on 5.12.1952 as admitted by the Assistant Commissioner. From Ext.P1, I find that on different pages thereof different superior offices have signed the book. That shows that the entries in Ext.P1 service book of the petitioner were made when the corresponding superior officers who signed the service book were in office. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that when the service book was reconstructed, the date of entry of the petitioner was wrongly entered does not appear to be convincing at all. Going by Ext.P1 service book of the petitioner, the petitioner started service on 5.12.1952. Insofar as there is no circumstance to doubt the correctness of the entries in Ext.P1 service book, there is no reason for the respondents to dispute his date of entry in service as any other date. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner's date of entry in service is 5.12.1952 itself. That being so, on the date of retirement he had completed 31 years of service, in which case, he is entitled to 30 years' higher grade as well. Therefore, Ext.P5 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The petitioner's pensionary benefits shall be computed taking his total service as 31 years as accepted w.p.c.28259/04 4 above and arrears shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge