IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23690 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.B. VISWANATHAN, OVERSEER GRADE-III, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATIOIN AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.23690 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T I have heard Sri.P.J Elvin Peter, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.R Sreelatha, the learned Government Pleader appearing on notice for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is presently working as Overseer Gr.III in the Local Self Government Department seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P4 representation dated 5.7.2008, wherein, the petitioner has claimed that the provisional service rendered by him as Overseer Gr.III from 16.11.1982 to 22.3.2002 in the Public Works Department may be treated as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The petitioner relies on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit-P3 judgment in W.A Nos.1381of 1996 and 1975 of 1999. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has observed as follows: W.P ( C) No.23690 of 2008 2 “8. In the cases at hand, all the appellants are Ex-service men. They completed more than ten years service as provisional employees and retired from service. The service rendered by a provisional employee and that of a regular employee do not normally differ in its quality and content, especially in such posts, like Mechanic or Fitter occupied by the appellants. If the Government had appointed a regular hand to man those posts, such employees would have been eligible for pension. These persons, we are told were discharging their functions satisfactorily throughout their service. But because of their nature of appointment, they are being denied pension. This Court cannot grant them any relief in the absence of any Rules. We are bound by the principle that relief can be granted only if there is a right, but the Government are armed with sufficient powers under the Rules to deal with their case appropriately. A democratically elected Government, sensitive to the grievances of the citizens, may redress the grievance of the appellants. So, the Government may consider the claim of the appellants for pensionary benefits in relaxation of the Rules. The counsel also brought to our notice, the scheme for ex-gratia pension introduced by the Government as per G.O (P) No.1851/99/Fin.dated 18.9.1999 which is produced as Annexure II along with CMP No.9196/2001 in W.A. No.1381/96 to pay pension to those who are otherwise ineligible. They also pointed out that the pension scheme introduced for the benefit of the personal staff of the Ministers. So, we direct the Government to take a decision on the claim of the appellants for pensionary benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, W.P ( C) No.23690 of 2008 3 uninfluenced by the stand taken by it earlier. We may not be taken as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case binding the hands of the Government in taking an independent decision”. Having regard to the fact that the Government is yet to take a decision in the matter, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Exhibit- P4 in the light of the observations in Exhibit-P3 judgment referred to above and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.23690 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.23690 of 2008 5