IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 21397 of 2005(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.SUDHAKARA PANICKER, T.C. NO.6/1345, PADMALAYAM, CHITTATTINKARA, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HON'BLE KERALA LOK AYUKATHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA FOR R1 SMT.SHIRMILA. C.S. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.21397/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLIANT NO.78/2001 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.4.2004 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND PETITIONER PRODUCED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 21.12.2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.7.2004 FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORUM. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2003 IN O.P.NO.14143/2002-H OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF ORDER NO.B.O.(FB).NO.2574/2005 (ESTT.IV/RECKONING SERVICE/2005 DATED 01.09.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21397 OF 2005 (V) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman,J. The 1st respondent retired from service of the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board', on 31.8.2001 as Driver Grade-I. He joined service in the Board on 1.4.1995. But before joining the Board, he was working in the Kerala Municipal Common Service and appointments were made to both the Kerala Municipal Common Service and also the Board through the Public Service Commission. If the service rendered by the 1st respondent with the Kerala Municipal Common Service is also reckoned, then he will satisfy the minimum required service for eligibility of pension. The dispute was as to whether the service rendered by the 1st respondent in the Kerala Municipal Common Service can be reckoned as 'deemed service' in the Board for the limited purpose of WPC.21397/05 2 granting the pensionary benefits. The Lok Ayukta by the order impugned in this writ petition, held that as per Government Order, G.O. dated 2.2.2001, such benefits are extended to different services, and therefore, the Board is also bound by such Government Order. Directions were also given to calculate the pensionary benefits and to pay the same. In W.P.(C).No.21397 of 2005, wherein the petitioner in this writ petition had earlier challenged the order of the Lok Ayukta, but the same was dismissed by this Court. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Apex Court was disposed on 31.8.2009 by way of remand. The Apex Court took notice of the contentions raised by the parties, more particularly the 1st respondent herein, that in a similar matter, this Court has already taken a view in favour of the employee and which had been complied with by the Board. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the petitioners herein was that the Government Order as such is not automatically applicable to the services of the Board. Both these contentions were recorded to be considered by this Court. 2. While the matter was pending, the Board itself has adopted in principle to reckon the services rendered in like WPC.21397/05 3 services for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits by its own order as is evident from Ext.R1 (b). For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is however unnecessary to look into such changes. Based on the earlier judgment passed by this Court, similarly situated person has been extended the benefits as is evident from Ext.R1 (a). In such circumstances and in the absence of any materials produced to show that the case stand on a different footing, the contentions raised by the 1st respondent deserve to be upheld. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp