IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35624 of 2007(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.P.BALAKRISHNAN, CHERIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, PONMERI P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, (RETIRED L.D. CLERK/BILL COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION) 2. K.KUNHIKANARAN NAIR, KULAMULLA PARAMBIL, KOZHUKKALLUR P.O., MEPPAYUR VIA., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,S.C, SRI.K.D.BABU,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35624/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 1975/99 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 07/12/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 19571/02 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 23/07/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).8960/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 21/02/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF GOVERNMENT IN G.O.(RT) NO.2454/07/LSGD DTD. 11/09/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.35624 of 2007 (N) -------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were provisional employees appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Bill Collector under the 3rd respondent Corporation. They were appointed on 15/04/1980 & 10/04/1980 respectively and continued till 30/04/2003 and 31/03/2003. They claimed pension, which was rejected. Thereupon, they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.8960/2005. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, they relied on Ext.P2 judgment rendered by this Court on 23/07/2004 in O.P.No.19571/2002. This Court directed that the claim of the petitioners shall be reconsidered in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and the Government rejected the claim by Ext.P4. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners have no case that their appointments were not on provisional basis. They have also no case that the provisional service will be counted for pensionary benefits. It is WP(C) No.35624/2007 -2- despite all this that the claim for ex-gratia pension is urged. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that according to the Government, the case of the petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment was accepted and ex-gretia pension was paid, on account of the directions issued by this Court. It is also stated that the petitioners therein are ex-service men. It was on these two considerations, ex-gratia pension was sanctioned to the aforesaid persons. The order further states that these two factors are not available in the case of the petitioners herein. Added to this, the Government have also stated that the scheme of ex- gratia pension is applicable only to regular employees, who have less than 10 years of qualifying service, and that as the petitioners were having only provisional service, they cannot claim the benefit of ex-gratia pension as well. As already stated, the petitioners are only provisional employees and provisional service is not reckoned for pensionary benefits or even for ex-gratia pension. Therefore, the service rendered by the petitioners will not qualify either for regular pension or for ex-gratia pension. Their case is also different from the case dealt with by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. If that be so, WP(C) No.35624/2007 -3- the view taken by the Government in Ext.P4, that ex-gratia pension cannot be granted to the petitioners cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg