IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34135 of 2005(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, PEON, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWAM, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (ESTT-D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. P.GOPAL, SC, GDB FOR R1 SRI.V.KRISHNAMENON, SC, GDB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34135/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1970. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1970. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 24.7.2004. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27.11.2004. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 17.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 4.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE BOND DT 30.11.04 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34135 OF 2005 (l) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined the 1st respondent as a Sweeper on 01.02.1970. He was made permanent only w.e.f. 5/12/1970. By Ext.P4 proceedings of the 1st respondent, giving him the benefit of Rule 60(b) of Part I KSR, the Devaswom allowed the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 proceedings to the 3rd respondent, stating that until 5.12.70, petitioner was only an NMR and therefore was ineligible for the benefit of Rule 60(b) Part I KSR. The 3rd respondent consequently issued Ext.P6 to the 1st respondent and it was at that stage the writ petition was filed. Consequent on the interim order of this Court staying Exts.P5 and P6, petitioner continued in service till 60 years and was superannuated w.e.f. 30/11/2009. 2. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether, being an NMR till 5.12.1970, the petitioner was eligible to claim the benefit of Rule 60(b). This question stands fully answered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Full Bench WPC No. 34135/2005 :2 : judgment in WA No.1681/2001 holding that to claim the benefit of Rule 60(b) Part I KSR, an employee need not have been in permanent or regular service as on 7/4/1970. This judgment is seen followed by the Division Bench in RP No.816/2002 in WA No.2130/2000. 3. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench and the Division Bench referred to above and as admittedly the petitioner had entered service prior to 7.4.1970, Ext.P4 order permitting the petitioner to continue till 60 years could not have been faulted. If so, Exts.P5 and P6 are illegal and are liable to be quashed and I do so. 4. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits on the basis that he continued in service till 30/11/2009 on a regular basis. Needless to say that the benefits, if any, shall be reworked and paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp