IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 1253 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2153/2006 Dated 29/11/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------- J.KESAVA PILLAI,(EX GS.NO.19005 DME) RESIDING AT KALARIVADAKKATHIL HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O., NEW DELHI 110011. 3. THE COMMANDER 'D' PL 5 FORMATION CUTTING COY, (GREF), C/O.99 APO. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HQ 29, BRTF, C/O.99 APO. 5. THE COMMANDER GREF CENTRE, DIGHI CAMP PUNAI-15. BY SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, CGC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.1253/2007 IN W.A. NO. 2153 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated 26th February, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The review petitioner was a Group D employee under the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), who was retrenched from service on 1.3.1973. He claims, he was not granted the monthly pension, though eligible for the same. This Court by Ext.P1 judgment, directed consideration of his claim. Pursuant to the said judgment, by Ext.P2 order, his claim was considered and rejected. In para 3 of that order, it is stated as follows: “AND WHEREAS as a result of reduction in work load Shri.J.Kesava Pillai was discharged from service wef 26 Feb 1973. By then he had put in 11 years 8 months and 5 days service. At that time he was holding quasi-permanent status. Terminal dues as admissible were paid to him. However, since the records pertaining to the said period (being 29 years old) have been destroyed as per the laid down Govt procedures, the exact amount of terminal benefits paid to him are not available in the records of this department. The amount paid should be known to him. For being admissible to pension, a Govt RP 1253/2007 2 employee is required to complete 20 years' service in any capacity, i.e., Temporary/Quasi-permanent/Permanent. The grant of Quasi-permanent status alone does not bestow any additional benefits on an employee as far as the grant of pension or other terminal benefits are concerned.” 2. The writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P2. But, we notice that in the said writ petition, no ground is seen taken challenging the stand taken by the competent authority in Ext.P2 quoted above. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, mainly considering the grievance of the petitioner regarding the failure of the respondents to offer re-employment to him. The stand of the respondents was that they had advertised twice, giving a chance to those retrenched employees like the petitioner for re- employment. But, the petitioner did not respond. Though, the learned single Judge noticed that the respondents did not place any materials to show that advertisements were released, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal against the said judgment. His claim was specifically considered by the Division Bench and rejected by the judgment under review. The present review petition is filed, praying to reconsider the matter. 3. The review petitioner submits, as per the provisions of Rule 49(2) (b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules read in the light of the Rules 29 and 39 thereof, he is entitled to get pension. The stand of the respondents is that he RP 1253/2007 3 is not eligible to get the monthly pension. But, whatever other benefits payable to him have already been paid. The provisions of Rule 49(1)(b) underwent drastic amendments recently. The said Rule cannot have any application to the petitioner, who was retrenched from service in 1973. The claim made under Rule 39 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, is also plainly untenable, as the Rule does not have any application to the facts of the case. It applies to discharge of a Government servant on abolition of his permanent post. The claim of the review petitioner is that he was only a quasi-permanent employee under the GREF and he had been retrenched from service. Therefore, the said Rule also cannot have any application. Though the grounds raised are not grounds for review of the judgment but for appeal, we have considered the claim of the review petitioner on merits. We find no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ RP 1253/2007 4