IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18713 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.BALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, SASTHAMCOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION OFFICE, MINOR IRRIGATION, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, SASTHAMCOTTA. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18713 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Going by the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner started his career as a CLR worker on daily wages and he was absorbed in service as SLR worker with effect from 09/10/1991. He is to retire from service on 30/06/2010. 2. In this writ petition, his grievance is that despite the long service that he has rendered, he will not be paid pensionary benefits. 3. The claim was made and Ext.P4 is the reply that has been given. In Ext.P4, it is stated that as per the Rules in force, SLR workers are not eligible for pension. It is also stated that the Committee which has been constituted for studying the proposal regarding regularisation of SLR workers is yet to complete its study and until a decision is taken, the present position will continue. 4. The eligibility for pension is dependent upon the Rules that govern such payment. In this case, admittedly there is no Rule WP(C) No.18713/2010 -2- as on date providing for payment of pension to SLR workers. If that be so, at least, as at present the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P2 and contended that similar workers are paid pension. However, a reading of Ext.P2 shows that Ext.P2 has been issued in the context of SLR workers, who were absorbed as NMR workers. The petitioner has not been absorbed as NMR worker to claim parity with Ext.P2. Therefore, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg