IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 34224 of 2001(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SANTHA DEVI, SENIOR ASSISTANT (RETIRED) ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION (COLLEGE SECTION), ERNAKULAM NOW RESIDING AT SANTHA NIVAS, 29/2526A, KOLATHERI RD., PETTA, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION), OFFICE OF the CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), PENSION SPECIAL KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO3 SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1TO3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.34224/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.55924/2001 IN OP NO.34224/2001 DISMISSED. 26/05/2009 SD/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.30749/99 DATED 09/02/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.PA/XIV/24506 DATED 07/06/2000 OF R3. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19/01/1996 SENT TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, COCHIN-16 BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF LETTER NO.EBVS 2/33/96 DATED 11/02/97 FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE-G1) KSEB, TRIVANDRUM TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. P5 : COPY OF ORDER NO.EB3(b)/333/97 DATED 29/10/97 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) GENERAL. P6 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE MEMO NO.EBI/JA/98-99/3548 DATED 09/11/98 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2000 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P8 : COPY OF ORDER NO.461/2001 PSI/3141/2000 DATED 23/02/2001, KSEB, PERSONNEL DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P9 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22/05/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA. P10 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.EB2/2000-01/228 DATED 16/01/2001 OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COLLEGE SECTION TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/11/1999 OF R1 IN THIS REGARD ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM). R1(b) : COPY OF LETTER NO.EBVS2/33/96 DATED 11/02/1997. R1(c) : COPY OF LETTER NO.EB3(B)41/99 DATED 16/08/1999. OP NO.34224/2001 R1(d) : COPY OF LETTER OF AUTHORISATION NO AXIV/24506 DATED 20/12/2001. R1(e) & R1(f) : COPIES OF LETTER NO.EBI/SA/99-00 DATED 16/07/1999 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM AND LETTER DATED 26/07/1999 OF DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P.No.34224 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board as a Cashier on 24/09/1970. She attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/1998. In this writ petition, what the petitioner complains is that by Ext.P2, she is being paid only minimum pension. Although, the prayer is for a direction to the respondents to pay full pension and gratuity for the entire length of her service, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for directing the respondents to pay pension for the actual service rendered. 2. It is submitted that during the period of her service, for various reasons including sickness, she had availed of leave for various spells of time. It is stated that leave was availed of after making applications and that none of her applications were rejected. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner ought to have been paid pension for the full period of her service. OP No.34224/2001 -2- 3. Counter affidavit filed by the KSE Board, discloses that during the period of the petitioner's service, she was absent unauthorisedly for the period from 23/04/1980 to 04/03/1997. It is stated that out of the total period of 28 years, 3 months and 8 days of service, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 16 years, 10 months and 11 days. It is further stated that no action could be taken in time against her for the unauthorised absence. It is stated that the petitioner was permitted to rejoin duty with effect from 05/03/1997, and thereafter only the petitioner applied for regularising her period of unauthorised absence. It is stated that though action ought to have been taken, no action was taken, and the period was not regularised. It is stated that the period when the petitioner was on unauthorised absence was not reckoned for any purpose. Accordingly, the respondents calculated 11 years as the period of qualifying service admissible for pension. It is stated that for that period pension has been calculated and has been given. In my view, the petitioner is a beneficiary of the irresponsibility of the respondents, and should be content with what is being paid OP No.34224/2001 -3- to her. It is strange that in a Government Organisation, unauthorised absence of almost 17 years out of the service of 28 years has gone unnoticed and without any action. Irrespective of the irresponsibility of the respondents, since, reckoning the actual qualifying service for pension, and the petitioner has been paid the benefits, I do not think that this Court will be justified in directing the respondents to give anything more to the petitioner. The original petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg