IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 7192 of 2004(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- P.CHELLAMMA, W/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 64, ILAMPARATHALA VEEDU, CHEKKAKONAM P.O., KARAKULAM (NURSING ASSISTANT) (RTD.). BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF DISRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PEROORKADA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7192/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DT. 21.6.95. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 17.5.99. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REVISED PENSIONARY BENEFITS OF ONE KRISHNAMMA DT. 26.2.02. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DT. 4.6.02 ACCOMPANYING WITH THE CALCULATION SHEET OF PENSION. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18.4.02 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7192 of 2004 ------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as a Family Planning Worker on 11.7.1967 on an honorarium of Rs.20/- per month, which was subsequently raised. Government decided to recruit approved Family Planning Workers to the post of part- time cleaners of the Health Services Department and accordingly, the petitioner was also so recruited. The post of part-time cleaners is born in the Kerala Part-time Contingent Service. Later the petitioner was promoted as Nursing Assistant in Kerala Last Grade Service with effect from 4.6.1979. She retired on 31.3.1995 as Nursing Assistant. The dispute in the case relates to the manner in which the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 28.2.1977 to 4.6.1979 in the part-time contingent service is counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the petitioner, Rule 14 A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which provides that contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed 50% of the contingent service for the purpose of pension, contemplates a situation where the contingent employees are entitled to continue upto the age of 70 for superannuation. But, in cases where the person W.P.(C).NO.7192/04 :: 2 :: concerned, after rendering contingent service, is born in the regular establishment and therefore retires at the age of 55, there is no reason why the entire contingent service should not be taken into account for determining the service as qualifying service for pension. It is accordingly that the petitioner has approached this court with this writ petition seeking a direction to take into account the entire service from 28.2.1977 to 4.6.1979 aggregating to 2 years, 3 months and 6 days for the purpose of determining the qualifying service as far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Government has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the petitioner. It is submitted that half of the contingent service has been taken into account as far as the petitioner is concerned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. In my view, there is no error in the stand taken by the Government that only half the contingent service rendered by the petitioner can be taken into account in terms of Rule 14A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It is true that Rule 14 A would have been in contemplation when the age of superannuation was fixed in many cases at 70. But it W.P.(C).NO.7192/04 :: 3 :: has also to be remembered that part time contingent servants who are thereafter promoted to regular establishment service are entitled to take into account the entire regular service, other than part-time contingent service for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for pension. This is probably because Rule 14 stipulates that only 50% of the contingent service will be reckoned. The rule has been correctly applied in the case of the petitioner. I do not find any error. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//