IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 8122 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- T.J.SARADA,W/O.S.SEETHARAMAN POTTI, AGED 56 YEARS, U.D.CLERK (1ST GRADE ASSISTANT) (REGIRED)OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BRANCH OFFICE, CHERTHALA (RESIDING AT DEVI KRIPA) KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISRICT) BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED FAZILFOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8122/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6666/A1/2007H/HSG. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.75/2003/HSG. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.82/2007/HSG.OF THE GOVT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.29/2005/HSG. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.61/2006/HSG. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.39/68/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.29/71/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.103/86/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE GO.(P) NO.452/2006/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.188/2008/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.269/2008/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.420/08/FIN. OF THE GOVT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2004(2) KLT 190. EXT.P14(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO.602/2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8122 OF 2009 (I) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T After rendering service in an Aided School for the period 6/6/79 to 22/11/87, petitioner joined the Kerala State Housing Board on 23/11/1987. She continued there and retired as an UDC on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/12/2007. She submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations requesting to reckon her past service in the aided school for the purpose of pension. It would appear that the request with a proposal was forwarded by the Housing Board to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 directing the Housing Board to decline the proposal for counting the previous service for pensionary benefits. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on Exts.P4 to P10. Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P6(a) are orders issued by the Government of Kerala allowing the Housing Board to reckon prior service of the persons mentioned therein for the purpose of fixing the pensionary benefits. In so far as Exts.P7 to P10 are concerned, those are orders issued by the Government permitting reckoning WPC 8122/09 :2 : of prior service in Government Service itself and therefore, cannot be of much relevance in so far as the request of the petitioner is concerned. 3. Housing Board in the counter affidavit justifies their decision relying entirely on Ext.P3. They say that when the representation was received from the petitioner that was forwarded to the Government for approval and that the Government declined the proposal by Ext.P3 and therefore, they are not in a position to reckon the prior service. 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The justification offered is that there is no rule enabling the petitioner to claim that the prior service should be reckoned for pension. In so far as Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P6(a) are concerned, they say that these orders were passed exercising the discretionary power of the Government and that the petitioner has no vested right to claim parity in treatment. 5. True, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, there is no rule enabling the petitioner to claim that her prior service in the aided school should also be reckoned for fixing her pensionary benefits for the service rendered in Housing WPC 8122/09 :3 : Board. However, if as contended by the petitioner, similar benefit has been granted in respect of similar employees, there is no reason why such benefit shall not be extended to the petitioner also. Counter affidavit also does not disclose any factual difference between the cases dealt with by the Government in the aforesaid orders and in the case of the petitioner. In any case, none of these considerations are seen taken into account by the Government while issuing Ext.P3. These circumstances justify an order requiring reconsideration of the matter and therefore Ext.P3 deserves to be set aside and I do so. Writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent for reckoning the prior service rendered by the petitioner in the Aided School. The matter shall be reconsidered duly adverting to Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P6(a) and fresh orders in the matter shall be passed. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp