IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 811 of 2010(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19817/2005 ................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------- 1. V.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,SIVANANDA NILAYAM, KOCHIRAVILA,IRANIMUTTAM VILLAGE,MANACAUD.P.O. 2. G.BHASKARAN,VARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOVALAM BEACH ROAD,VIZHINJAM.P.O. 3. K.KRISHNAN NAIR,AMBIKAVILASAM PUTHEN VEEDU,AVADUTHURA DESOM,VIZHINJAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.VAMADEVAN,SANTHI NIVAS,CHEMPAZHANTHI. P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. V.SREEKANTAN NAIR,KUSASTHALI, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA,MALAYAM,MALAYAM.P.O, VILAVOORKAL PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TOURISM DEPARTMENT,SECRETARY,TOURISM DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR,DEPARTMENT BY THE SECRETARY, TOURISM DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, YATHRI NIVAS,THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E),KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.A.AHAMED,SC FOR KTDC LTD. FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. B GOPAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 811 of 2010(H) APPENDIX: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt)No.1318/2020/TSM DATED 23.2.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- R.P. No.811 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 19817 OF 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioners herein seek a review of the judgment delivered by me on 28.5.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 19817 of 2005. By that judgment, the claim of the petitioners for pension upon retirement from service was declined on the ground that the service rendered by them in the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation is not pensionable. This Court however directed the Government to consider their claim under rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. In paragraph 2 and 3 of the judgment delivered on 28.5.2009 this Court noticed that the employees of Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTDC' for short) are not eligible for pension. In this review petition, it is contended that as per the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Service Rules, service in the KTDC is pensionable and therefore the observations and findings to the contra in the judgment sought to be reviewed cannot be sustained. 2. The relevant portion of the Kerala Tourism RP No.811/2010 2 Development Corporation Service Rules relied on by the petitioners in the review petition reads as follows: “GENERAL” These rules shall be called “Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Service Rules” hereinafter referred to as 'Service Rules.” These rules are intended to define conditions of service including recruitment and promotion discipline, control and appeal,pay and allowances (including tavelling and other allowances) leave Provident Fund and Retirement benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation. Provided that the Government servants whether of the Central Government or of the State Government whose services are placed at the disposal of the Corporation on foreign service conditions specifically fixed by the Government concerned from time to time. Note 1: The staff of the Tourist Department of the Government of Kerala whose services are at the disposal of the Corporation on the date on which these rules come into force may either choose to remain permanently in the service of the Corporation or to revert to the parent Department. Those who opt for corporation service will be governed by these rules. 2. The pensionable staff of the Tourist Department who are absorbed in the service of the corporation as per note 1 above will be given by the corporation the pension and gratuity due to them according to the relevant rules of the Kerala Service Regulations and in proportion to their length of service under the Corporation. 3. The interse seniority of the staff of the Tourist Department absorbed in the service of the Corporation will be fixed taking into consideration their service in the Department in the same or similar categories.” RP No.811/2010 3 It is mainly relying on the aforesaid rule that the petitioners contend that they are entitled to pension. 3. The Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Service Rules came into force on 26.10.1967. The petitioners were at that point of time workers in the Department of Tourism. They became employees of the KTDC with effect from 7.3.1970. Except the second petitioner all of them retired from the KTDC. The second petitioner retired from the India Tourism Development Corporation. The establishment where he was working was taken over by the India Tourism Development Corporation with effect from 24.10.1970. Note 1 to the rule extracted above stipulates that staff of the Tourist Department of the Government of Kerala whose services are at the disposal of the Corporation on the date on which these rules come into force may either choose to remain permanently in the service of the Corporation or to revert to the parent department and that those who opt for corporation service, will be governed by these rules. 4. From a reading of Note 1, it is evident that it applies only to those staff of the Tourist Department of the Government of Kerala whose services were at the disposal of the Corporation RP No.811/2010 4 on 26.10.1967. Note 2 applies only to those staff of the Tourist Department who are absorbed in the service of the corporation as per Note 1. The petitioners herein are not covered by Note 1 and therefore Note 2 cannot have any application in their case. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioners cannot rely on the rules referred to above to contend for the position that the service rendered by them in the KTDC is pensionable service. None of the petitioners had a minimum service of 10 years in the Tourism Department prior to their absorption in the KTDC. It was taking note of that fact that this Court directed the Government to examine their claim under rule 11 of the KSR if they move the Government by filing appropriate representations. Such being the situation, I find no reason to review the judgment delivered by me on 28.5.2009. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps