IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 890 of 2006() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2112/2004 Dated 23/03/2006) .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- P.M. SUGATHAN, S/O. MAMA, METER READER, RETIRED FROM ELECTRICAL SECTION TRIPRAYAR, NOW RESIDING AT: PADATHIPARAMBIL NATTIKA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRTARY TO THE GOVERNEMNT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO 4 MR. A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 890 OF 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The issue involved in this case is pertaining to non-counting of provisional service of the petitioner for granting the Pension. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition with the following prayers : (a) a reckon the service of the petitioner from 1981 to 30.11.2002 for all the pensionary benefits. (b) to refix the pay of the petitioner taking weightage admissible in the 1998 settlement w.e.f. 31.08.1998 (c) to grant 10 years time bound higher grade w.e.f. 14.02.1999 (d) to pay the pension, commutation of pension and gratuity on the basis of the pay arrived at by implementing the reliefs (b) and (c) above. (e) to pay the leave surrender salary for 242 days. (f) to pay arrears on the basis of (b) (c) and (d) above. (g) to pay interest at the market rate on the above amounts. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Meter Reader on provisional basis, under Rule 9 (a) (i) of K.S. and S.S.R.. He started the W.A No. 890 of 2006 :2: career w.e.f. 05.12.1981. On expiry of the term, he was reappointed and continued for some other spells. Finally, he was regularized in the service, based on Ext. P2, w.e.f. 31.08.1998 and the appellant retired from the service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.11.2002. But since he was not having minimum period of qualifying service, he was not given the regular pension, but for granting 'ex-gratia pension' for four years from 1998 to 2002. 3. On filing the Writ Petition before this Court, the issue, which was common in some other cases as well, was considered in detail and the judgment was rendered on 23.03.2006, granting some reliefs, however, making it clear, with regard to the counting of the provisional service, that, it was for the parties concerned to approach the Government. Paragraph 10 of the judgment, which contains the relevant portion with regard to the appellant herein, reads as follows : “10. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2112/04 has already retired from service on 30.11.2002. His pensionary claim shall be settled in the light of Ext. P12 order produced in O.P. 3879/03, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. His claim for further amounts by way of terminal benefits will depend W.A No. 890 of 2006 :3: upon the decision of the Government as directed in the above judgment.” The appellant has approached this Court, challenging the verdict to the extent it has not provided the relief sought for in counting the provisional service. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings as above, a Long Term Settlement was entered into between the Management of the Board as well as the Workers represented by the Unions, whereby it was decided to have the 'provisional service' counted for Pension with effect from 1981. A copy of the relevant proceedings, containing the relevant clause, particularly Clause 15 of the General and Miscellaneous Provisions under Article X has been produced as Annexure 1 along with I.A. No. 464 of 2011 dated 10.06.2011, which reads as follows; “15. The provisional service rendered by the provisional Linemen / Meter Readers from 1981 onwards will be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Their continuous provisional service from February 1989 will be reckoned for weightage, increment, higher grade and leave benefits with effect from 31.07.2003” The obscurity with regard to the said provision was sought to be clarified by W.A No. 890 of 2006 :4: the Board, by issuing a Circular dated 02.02.2011, whereby it has been agreed and stipulated to have the provisional service counted in the above regard. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to have the benefit of Annexures 1 and 2 produced along with the aforesaid I.A. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that, there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The rigor of the Rule, as contemplated under Rule 57 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, stipulating minimum qualifying service of 10 years to make the employees eligible for pension, read with Rule 10, has been sought to be watered down, pursuant to the Long Term Settlement, by virtue of Clause (15) of Annexure 1 and as clarified by Annexure 2 Circular dated 02.02.2011. In the said circumstances, we find that, the matter requires to be reconsidered, in the light of Annexures 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the claim of the appellant for granting pension counting the provisional service w.e.f 1981 as stipulated in Annexure 1 Long Term Settlement, as clarified vide Annexure 2 Circular. The W.A No. 890 of 2006 :5: proceedings as above shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge