IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1503 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33022/2005 DATED 14/06/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT INFORMATION OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------- K.N.THANKACHAN, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, 'KRISHNA', VARTHA NAGAR, KANJIKUZHY, MOTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1503 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBIT: ANNEXURE : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1663/2010 DATED 03.08.2011. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1503 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Admittedly, the appellant herein is a former Journalist. He applied for the benefit of pension under the Kerala State Journalists' Pension Scheme, 1993. This application of him came to be made in the year 1994, at which time, according to him, he was working with the 'Mangalam daily' since 01.04.1990. It is not in dispute that when he submitted the application for pension, already Ext.P2 amendment has come into force with effect from 05.01.1994. The denial of pension by the State was on the ground of his working with Mangalam daily on a contract basis and not on a regular basis. This came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the reliefs sought by the respondent herein, opined, there is no material for the appellants/State to contend that the respondent was on a contract service, therefore, there was no justification for them to reject the benefit. Reference was made to Ext.P13 W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:2:- issued by Mangalam daily indicating his services for them between the period from 01.04.1990 to 01.03.1995 as Sub Editor of the paper. This was the document which came to be relied upon by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the stand of the State. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the State. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, by virtue of Ext.P2, the retirement age came to be extended from 60 to 65 and the respondent Journalist retired much prior to coming into force of the very scheme in 1993. Therefore, he was not eligible for the benefit under the Pension Scheme. 4. We have gone through the 1993 Scheme and also the amendment at Ext.P2. Clause 4 of the Scheme provides eligible criterion to become a member, which reads as under: “4. Eligibility.- Any working journalist, as detailed herein below, will be eligible for pension under this Scheme: (1) A person who had either continuously or during intervals have rendered at least a minimum of 10 yeas' service and has retired from service and is a member of this Scheme will be eligible. W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:3:- (2) Any person who is not able to complete 10 years' of service for no fault of his, and loses his job, but has rendered service for a total of not less than five years, and is a Member of this Scheme, will be eligible. (3) However, the person mentioned in the above sub- rule will not be eligible to get pension above 50 per cent of the pension allowable under these Rules. Besides, if a person has become a Member of this Scheme and enjoyed the benefit of pension, or at an intermediate stage lost the membership or has relinquished his membership, and was in receipt of pension under these Rules, will not be eligible to become a Member of the Scheme again or to become eligible for pension.” Clause 6 refers to registration of working Journalists as members which reads as under: “6. Registration of Working Journalists as Members.- Any person who has completed the age of 18 years but has not reached the age of 60 years but is working as a working Journalist shall be eligible to become a Member of this Scheme and register himself as such. However, a person who is a working Journalist at the time when these Rules came into force, shall register himself as a Member within six months. (2) Application for registering himself as a Member shall be submitted in prescribed Form(Annexure I) to the Convenor of the Managing Committee. W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:4:- (3) Along with his application, the applicant also shall furnish a Statement(Certificate)obtained from the owner of the Establishment in which he is working as a Working Journalist, showing the name of the Establishment, the nature of his job, the date on which joined the employment, his date of birth, as seen from records in th Establishment. (4) The application under these Rules shall be received/accepted by the Convenor of the Managing Committee or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf, and the name of the applicant and other details shall be entered in the Register maintained for the said purpose, known as Register of Members, for which action shall be taken.” Clause 7 is with regard to the general condition with regard to membership which also reads as under: “7. General conditions with regard to Membership.- (1) A member who attains the age of 60 years or has completed 40 years as a Member, which ever happens earlier, will be eligible to get pension under this Scheme. (2) If a Member does not work as a Working Journalist, continuously for a period of not less than one year, his Membership of this Scheme shall automatically be ceased. (3) In the event of a Member committing default in payment of his subscription to the Fund for a period exceeding six months at a time, his Membership shall stand cancelled. However, if it is satisfied that he was not able to work as a Working Journalist or the default in paying the subscription was on account of justifiable reasons, the Managing Committee W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:5:- can restore his Membership of the Scheme, on payment of arrears of subscription due from him. But Membership of a Member cannot be restored in this manner on more than three occasions. (4) A Member, who has lost his Membership of the Scheme, shall be eligible to get back the amounts paid by him until then, one year after he ceases to be a Member.” 5. Then coming to Ext.P2 Government Order dated 05.01.1994, the relevant provision is paragraph 3, which reads as under: “3. Pension Rules (Rule 6(1) and 7(1)), which specify 60 years, are amended by replacing 60 years with 65 years, where the concerned Managements permit the Working Journalists to work until that age. In those cases, subscription has to be paid until they attain the age of 65 years.” 6. By reading the Pension Scheme Rules at Ext.P1, as stated above, along with paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 05.01.1994, wherever age is specified as 60 years, it has to be read as 65 years. In the entire Scheme of Pension Rules, we do not find any rule indicating whether one has to be either on a contract employment or a regular employment. In other words, there is no disqualification, if the Journalist is working on W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:6:- contract basis. Even otherwise, Ext.P13 does not indicate that he was working as Sub Editor on a contract basis. In the absence of such material, on what basis the appellant/State is contending that the respondent was working on contract basis with Mangalam papers, we are unable to understand. Even otherwise, by virtue of Rule 6 and 7, if the respondent/Journalist was within the eligible criterion as on the date of his application, he was entitled for membership because he had worked for more than 17 yeas in all, as per Ext.P7, in different newspapers in different capacities. 7. On the date of his application, he was below the age of 65 which is the qualification required as per paragraph 3 of the order dated 05.01.1994. Even when the Pension Rules came into force in the year 1993, he was working for Mangalam daily as Sub Editor. In that view of the matter, either at the time of the main rule coming into force or the amendment in 1994, he was not ineligible to become a member. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. W.A. No.1503 of 2011 -:7:- In view of the above discussion and reasoning, the stand of the appellant/State has to be rejected. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The benefit under the Scheme has to be considered within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb