IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26755 of 2006(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. SURENDRAN, S/O. C. KRISHNAN, REMYA NIVAS, PANANGODE, VENGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PEOPLE'S ACTION FOR DEVELOPMENT (KERALA) RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRIVANDRUM. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 26755 of 2006(I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE G.O.MS.34/85/DD DATED 10.07.1985 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES PEOPLES ACTION FOR DEVELOPMENT (KERALA) EMPLOYEES SERVICE RULES EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE G.O(Rt.) NO.151/2005/ID DATED 22.02.2005. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE G.O (Rt.) NO.488/2005/ID DATED 17.05.05 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1054/89/PAD(K) DATED 10.01.1990. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26755 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined as a Peon in the 1st respondent organisation on 2.5.1986 and retired from that organisation on 28.2.2006. The petitioner has completed about 20 years of service in that organisation. According to the petitioner, even though the rules applicale to the 1st respondent organisation are similar to that of the rules applicable to the Government of Kerala, the petitioner has not been given retirement benefits as applicable to Government servants. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) to declare that the petitioner has discharged his duties in the first respondent organization as a pensionable service and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive the pension and pensionary benefit. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to grant pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law, taking into consideration the salary drawn by the petitioner and the total years of service rendered by him in the first respondent organisation. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent taking the stand that the 1st respondent is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, and no rules sanctioning a pension scheme for the employees of the said society have been adopted by the society or the Government, although the society functions with the grant-in-aid given by the Government. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, w.p.c.26755/06 - : 2 :- the employees of the said society are not entitled to pension. Consequently, the petitioner is also not entitled to pension benefits. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The question as to whether an establishment, which is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, should be given retirement benefits is a policy decision, which has to be taken by the Government. So far no policy decision has been taken by the Government in that regard. In fact in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the financial position of the said society has been detailed, which according to the 2nd respondent, does not justify a scheme for payment of pension to the employees of the society. In fact, it is stated therein that the Government have already decided to wind up the 1st respondent society and orders in this regard will be issued shortly. When there is no scheme for payment of pension to the employees of an organisation, this Court cannot direct the Government to frame a scheme for the same, especially when the establishment in question cannot afford to have such a scheme in view of its financial position. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.26755/06 - : 3 :-