IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 33243 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.V.THANKAPPAN, MUTHAYIL HOUSE, ECHIPPARA.P.O, CHIMMINI DAM, VARANDARAPPILLI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM, MR.M.S.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33243/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROAD), MANJERI. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT OF ANOTHER PERSON OF THE P.W.D. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 33243 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri N. Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was a casual worker in the Irrigation Department. He was later appointed as S.L.R. Worker. He attained the age of superannuation on 31-10-2007. As per G.O.(MS) No.46/90/PW&T dated 18-5-1990, S.L.R. Workers are not entitled to pension, but only gratuity. Their age of retirement is 58 years, unlike 55 years for Government servants. In this writ petition, the petitioner's grievance is that though he was granted only D.C.R.G., by Ext.P5 order the Accountant General has granted to a similarly situated person pension, besides D.C.R.G. The petitioner therefore prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction monthly pension to him from the date of his superannuation. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that WPC 33243/2008 2 Ext.P5 order sanctioning monthly pension to Sri. Thankappan K.K. was mistakenly issued and that Ext.P5 has been cancelled. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the petitioner who did not belong to a pensionable establishment cannot claim pension. The petitioner has not been able to point out any rule or Government order entitling him to pension. His only contention is that since pension has been sanctioned to another similarly placed individual, he is also entitled to the same. As stated earlier, the Government have on coming to know that pension was irregularly sanctioned to Sri.K.K. Thankappan cancelled Ext.P5 order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P5 to contend that he is also entitled to pension. It is trite law that public authorities have inherent power to correct mistakes even in the absence of specific conferment of power in that regard. Therefore, Ext.P5 cannot be relied on by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.