IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 31723 of 2002(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. VASU, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KOMMERI P.O., NEDUMPOIL. (RETIRED PERMANENT LABOURER GOVERNMENT GOAT FARM, KOMMERI). BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT GOAT FARM, KOMMERI, P.O. NEDUMPAYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 650. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1,2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1.4.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31723 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired after 8 years and 7 months and 28 days of permanent labour service and 17 years of causal labour service from the Kommeri Government Goat Farm in Kannur District, which is under the Department of Animal Husbandry of the Govt. of Kerala. The petitioner sought reckoning of the casual labour service also for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. By Ext.P6 letter from the District Animal Husbandry Officer, who is the head of the Department of the petitioner, to the Accountant General, it was recommended that his casual service also be counted for the purpose of pension. However, by Exts.P7, P8 and P10, the office of the Accountant General rejected the same on the ground that, as per the Government letter No.54014/AF1/84/Ad. dated 254.10.1985, when the permanent labour service falls short of 10 years, the entire casual labour service will not be added to the qualifying service, but only that period of the casual labour service, which is necessary to make up the service to 10 years would be taken into consideration for the purpose of paying minimum pension and the remaining casual service will be ignored. It was further clarified that only if a person has 10 year or more of permanent service, the entire casual labour service also would be added for the purpose of pension. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7, P8 and P10 and seeking the following reliefs in 2 this original petition: “(i) to call for the entire records leading up to Ext.P7, P8 and P10 and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or Order. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to reckon the entire service of the petitioner in Government Goats Farm, Kommeri right from 1966 for the fixation of her [sic] pensionary benefits including gratuity. (iii) to direct the respondents to disburse the entire dues of pensionary benefits fixed taking into account of her entire service with Government Goats Farm, Kommeri. (iv) to pass any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (v) to Award the cost of the petitioner in these proceedings. (vi) to declare that Govt. letter No.54014/AF1/84/Ad dated 25.10.1985 mentioned in Exts.P7, P8 and P10 will not stand in the way of considering the entire casual service of the petitioner for calculating his pensionary benefits.” 2. The normal rule is that casual labour service will not be counted for the purpose of pension. Therefore, casual labour service can be reckoned for the purpose of pension only if the Government issues appropriate orders for reckoning that service also for the purpose of calculating pension. By Annexure I letter from the Special Secretary to Government to the Accountant General, it has been stated thus: “As regards item 3 of the letter cited I am to inform you that it is not necessary to have minimum qualifying service from the date of permanancy to the date of option because a labourer may have service even after the date of option. Hence it is meant that a worker who has not got minimum qualifying service from the date of permanancy to the date of Superannuation and who still opts for pensionary benefits can reckon his casual labour service also as specified in rule 4(c)(iii) in order to earn a minimum pension. The casual labour service will be considered for pension only when the worker became permanent. 3 The position taken in item 4 of your letter cited is correct because if a workers has a total minimum service of ten years including casual labour service on the date of attainment of 55th year of age, he will not be entitled to the addition of service rendered beyond superannuation till the date of his option for pension.” Again in Annexure III it has been stated thus: “I am to inform you that amendment (3) to Rule 4 (c)(iii) of G.O (P).248/80/Ad as per G.O(P) 159/82/AD dated 30.4.1982 (copy enclosed) restricts to reckon entire casual labour service for pension. The cancellation of the portion reading “from the date of permanancy to the date of superannuation” from Rule 5(ii) of the Pension Rules does not alter in any way the provisions in the other rules. Hence, the casual labour service admissible under Rule 4(c)(iii) of G.O(P) 248/80/AD dated 8.7.80 subject to amendment (3) of G.O(P) 159/82/AD dated 30.4.1982 can be reckoned in all cases to earn minimum pension if the permanent worker is not having minimum service of 10 years.” Those Government orders specifically stipulate that in the case of persons who do not have minimum 10 years of permanent service, that part of the casual labour service sufficient to make up 10 years of service for earning minimum pension alone would be added to the permanent labour service. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have 10 years or more of permanent labour service. That being so, the petitioner's casual labour service would be taken into account only for the purpose of making up 10 years of minimum service required for payment of minimum pension. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31723 of 2002-B ================== J U D G M E N T 1st April, 2009