IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35620 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THOMAS A.O., ALUMMOODU HOUSE, VELIYANADU (P.O), ALAPPUZHA-689 590. 2. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35620 OF 2007-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2007 EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.MS NO.5/91/LAD DATED 5.1.1991 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PETITIONER NO KWA/HO/LS3 10956/86 DATED 2.5.1991, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2007 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.07 PASSED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.2.5.1991 PASSED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY WITH ITS FULL TEXT CONTAINING LIST OF NMR WORKERS EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS SERVICE PARTICULARS FROM 16.6.1980 TO 23.11.1989. / TRUE COPY / S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 35620 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is the Kerala Water Authority. They are aggrieved by Exts.P2, P5 and P6 orders of the Lok Ayukta , whereby the Lok Ayukta directed the Water Authority to pay pro-rata pension contribution in respect of the past service of the 1st respondent, who was a former employee of the Kerala Water Authority, who subsequently joined the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board and retired from there, to the Kerala State Electricity Board, for finalising his retirement benefits. The challenge is on the ground that the 1st respondent was only an NMR worker who was never absorbed into regular service. 2. The 1st respondent admittedly worked as an NMR worker in the Kerala Water Authority for the period from 16.06.80 to 23.11.89. On 23.11.89 he was relieved from the Kerala Water Authority for taking up employment with the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from the Kerala State Electricity Board and for the purpose of WPC : 35620/07 -:2:- calculating his pensionary benefits, the Kerala State Electricity Board addressed the Kerala Water Authority for pro-rata pension contribution for the period of service put in by him in the Kerala Water Authority. The Water Authority took the stand that they are not bound to pay pro-rata pension contribution since the 1st respondent was never absorbed in the regular service and he was only a NMR worker who resigned from service before regularisation. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, in which by Ext.P2 order, the Lok Ayukta directed the Water Authority to remit the pro-rata pension contribution in respect of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Electricity Board within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and further directing the Kerala State Electricity Board to revise the pensionary benefits of the 1st respondent on realisation of the pro-rata pension contribution from the Kerala Water Authority, taking into consideration his previous service in the Kerala Water Authority. Since the Water Authority did not comply with that order, further orders Exts.P5 and P6 were also issued by the Lok Ayukta for enforcing compliance. It is under the above circumstances, the WPC : 35620/07 -:3:- petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P2, Ext.P5 and P6 orders and to quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari, any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. To declare that the Kerala Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue orders for executing an unenforceable order by initiating Contempt of Court proceedings under Section 19 and issuance of Section 14 declaration as per Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.” 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to him, the contention that he was not absorbed in regular service is clearly erroneous in so far as by Ext.R1(a), his service had been regularised and he had been absorbed in regular service of the Kerala Water Authority. He also contends that the averments in the writ petition that he resigned from service is also wrong. According to him, he did not resign from the Kerala Water Authority and on getting employment in the Kerala State Electricity Board he was only relieved from the Kerala Water Authority to take up employment with the Kerala State Electricity Board. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I have already mentioned that the contention raised in the WPC : 35620/07 -:4:- writ petition is that the 1st respondent had not been absorbed in regular service and he was relieved at a time when he continued as NMR worker which post is not recognised as pensionable service of the water Authority. This is amply disapproved by Ext.R1(a) order dated 20.05.91 issued by the petitioner themselves. In that the services of 483 NMR workers as per list attached to the same was regularised in the regular establishment of the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 16.06.85. In the list attached to that order serial No.143 is the 1st respondent. That being so, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent was not absorbed into regular service of the Kerala Water Authority. Therefore, the very premise on which the writ petition has been constituted is wrong. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb