IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15145 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.RUGMINI AMMA RETIRED EMPLOYEE, ARAYANKAVU DEVASWOM, PUNALUR GROUP, NOW RESIDING AT KALEELIL VEEDU (FROM KARAMEL VEEDU, MANNADY), ARAYANKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD , PUNALUR GROUP, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD , ARAYANKAVU DEVASWOM SUB GROUP, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY MR.P.GOPAL, S.C, T.D.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15145/2009-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 15/11/2000 ISSUED FROM CIVIL SURGEON, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PUNALUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10/08/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/06/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.18843/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO.8041/2003 MIS. 3 DTD. 29/08/2005 PASSED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DA.NO.6798/2007/D1 DTD. 16/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DA-144/2009/D1 DTD. 17/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 15145 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner entered service of the Travancore Devaswom Board as “Thali” on 11-5-1965. She continued as such till 31-3-1982. According to the petitioner, on account of certain ailments, she was totally paralyzed, as a result of which, he could not continue to discharge her duties. On the other hand, the Travancore Devaswom Board contends that the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented from duty. 2. Though belatedly, enclosing Ext.P2 medical certificate, the petitioner claimed pension for the service she had rendered. That was considered by the first respondent and was rejected by Ext.P5. The stand of the Travancore Devaswom Board is that she had unauthorizedly absented from duty and therefore, she is not eligible for pension. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the Board, what is disclosed is that the Travancore Devaswom Board (Temple Employees) Pension and Gratuity Rules, 1985 was framed by the the Travancore Devaswom Board with effect from 1-4-1985. It is stated that rule 2(2) of this Rules defines W.P.(C) No. 15145/09 2 “pensioner” as a temple employee who has retired or retire from service on or after April, 1985. It is stated since the petitioner unauthorizedly absented from service from 31-3-1982 she does not come within the definition of “pensioner” to claim benefit of pension. In so far as the gratuity claimed by the petitioner, it is stated that under the Regulations, only a person who attains the age of 60 years is eligible for gratuity and that a person who is on unauthorized absence is not eligible for the same. 4. However, referring to Ext.P7 the petitioner contends that even those who have left service before 1-4-1985 have been given ex-gratia pension, which is now raised to Rs.500/- per month. It is stated that even according to the Travancore Devaswom Board there are about 140 such persons and the Board should pay this benefit to the petitioner also. 5. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board also. The learned standing counsel contends that the petitioner is not eligible for pension in terms of the Regulations. According to him, having regard to the unauthorized absence, the petitioner cannot even claim ex-gratia pension also. 6. However, fact remains that the petitioner rendered service for about 17 years and had to discontinue her employment on account of the paralysis that she suffered. In such circumstances, in my view, it may not be W.P.(C) No. 15145/09 3 reasonable for the Board project the reason of unauthorized absence to deprive the petitioner of the ex-gratia pension, which has been paid to the other employees. Therefore, I feel the peculiar circumstances of this case justify payment of ex-gratia pension to the petitioner, at least, prospectively. 7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders for the payment of ex-gratia pension to the petitioner admissible under the scheme for the period from 1st January, 2010 onwards. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. It is made clear that this judgment having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.