IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 13957 of 2001(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. E.SOMANATHAN, L.D.CLERK, POVERTY ALLIEVIATION UNIT (PAU) DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (DRDA), PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.SOUTHAMINI, L.D.CLERK, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DRDA), KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 3. K.M.SATHAKUMARI, L.D.CLERK, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WYNAD, KALPETTA. 4. K.R.SANTHA, L.D.CLERK, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WYNAD, KALPETTA. 5. K.B.JAYASREE, L.D. TYPIST, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WYNAD, KALPETTA. 6. K.HUSSAIN, PEON, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, WYNAD, KALPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2 MS BLG. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 14854 OF 2001 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.13957/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.22214/2001 IN OP. NO.13957/2001 DISMISSED 15.07.2008 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S.14014/8/81-IRD-1 DT. 30.5.1981 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O. (MS) NO.50/84/DD DT. 18.9.1984. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.28011/26/85-IRD .III/VL. II DT. 22.7.88 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE LETER NO.D.O.NO. R.200013/6/95 IRD. 1 DT. 7.12.95 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 22.1.97 IN OP. 20212/96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.31/98/RDD DT. 29.9.98. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 7.4.2000 IN OP. 25818/99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== O.P.Nos.13957/2001 & 14854/2001 ====================================== Dated this the 15th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners, in these original petitions, challenge Ext.P8 order dated 23.12.2000. Ext.P8 order was issued in respect of provisional hands appointed in various District Rural Development Agencies whose services were later regularised. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that Ext.P8 was challenged by two other employees in O.P.No.34949 OF 2002 and that the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single judge of this Court on 24.1.2006 with the following directions: “Petitioners have been regularised in service under the Rural Development Department and admittedly they were conferred with all the benefits with effect from 29.9.1998. Therefore, both by express inclusion as per Note under Rule 90(1) and by express non-inclusion under Rule 90(2) of Part III KSR, the petitioners as well as the similarly situated employees covered by Exts.P2 and P3 are entitled to the benefit of family pension. The benefit conferred by KSR cannot be taken away by an executive order, otherwise than as permitted under the Rules. The Rules do not permit the Government to deny the benefit of family pension to a pensioner who satisfies the requirements of Rule 90(1) and (2). Pension and family pension are two sides of the same coin. Family pension is to the family of the pensioner and that benefit is part and parcel of the pension under Rule 90; the only difference being that the O.P.Nos.13957/2001&14854/2001 2 beneficiary is the family of the pensioner. There is no point in denying family pension to a pensioner who is otherwise eligible and entitled to be treated as a pensioner under Part III of KSR. There will hence be a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of family pension to the petitioners as well as other employees covered by Exts.P2 and P3 government orders. There is no need to drag the other employees who are not before this Court for the above purpose.” 2. In view of the directions issued by this Court in O.P.No.34949 of 2002, no further orders are required except to clarify that the aforesaid directions will govern the case of the petitioners also. As regards the relief sought by the petitioners for service benefits, without restricting it to 29.9.1998, this Court had in O.P.No.34949 of 2002, directed the state government to pass orders on the petitioners moving the government in that behalf. If the state government has, as directed by this Court in O.P.No.34949 of 2002, passed orders in the case of the petitioners therein, it would govern the petitioners in these cases as well. If, on the other hand, orders have not yet been passed, it will be open to the petitioners herein to move the state government, as directed by this Court in paragraph-4 of judgment in O.P.No.34949 of 2002. In that event the government shall pass orders in the matter O.P.Nos.13957/2001&14854/2001 3 within three months from today. Needless to say, if orders have already been passed pursuant to the direction in O.P.No.34949 of 2002 and if it is adverse to the petitioners herein or if the petitioners are aggrieved by any order that may be passed hereafter on their representation, they may challenge it in other appropriate proceedings. Their contentions in that regard are left open. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/ O.P.Nos.13957/2001&14854/2001 4 P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.Nos.13957/2001 &14854/2001 order 15.07.2008