IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 16053 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SULAIMAN.K.I., S/O.IBRAHIM, KAITHAKKATTU HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., WORKED AS AN UNSKILLED WORKER, SHIFT MAZDOOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AT WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED IQBAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-33. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, NEAR POPULAR AUTOMOBILES BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-14. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, VADAYAMPADY P.O., CHOONDY, PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV.SHRI J.KRISHNAKUMAR, SC FOR KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16053/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to have been working as a Shift Mazdoor in Kerala Water Authority from 23.9.1985 on a provisional basis. His pay was also revised in consonance with the pay revision order implemented in the Water Authority, corresponding to the pay revision effected in the Government. Subsequently, the benefits of such pay revision were withdrawn. Petitioner sought for regularization in service. It seems that ultimately his service was regularized with effect from 30.6.2004 Therefore, benefits were granted only with effect from 30.6.2004. Petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2006. He was granted pension at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. According to him, there was no break in service between the provisional service and the date of regularization. Therefore, the entire service from 1985 ought to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating pension. He refers to Ext.P6 judgment in this regard. W.P.(C).16053/2007 2 2. In the statement filed by the respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioner was regularized in service with effect from 30.6.2004 based on the Government Order, G.O.(Rt).No.739/04/WRD dated 30.6.2004. Going by the date of regularization as per the Government order, petitioner’s service prior to 30.6.2004 cannot be taken into account. 3. In my view, Government should consider the question as to whether the earlier service rendered by the petitioner prior to 30.6.2004, is the same as service rendered by him with effect from 30.6.2004. It is not the petitioner’s fault that he was not regularized earlier. If the nature of duties were same and there was no break in service, then the service which was rendered from 1985 should be taken into account at least for the purpose of calculating pension due to the petitioner. This can be done only by the Government. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: W.P.(C).16053/2007 3 5. Petitioner may point out these aspects in a representation to be filed before the first respondent within one month from today. There upon, first respondent, keeping in mind the observations made in Ext.P6 judgment, shall take a decision thereon within two months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and a representative of the Water Authority. If the petitioner's claim is acceptable, consequential orders shall also be passed by the Government. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs