IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2345 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5200/2004 Dated 10/08/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER. ------------------------- K.SUGUNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, VAIRATTEL HOUSE, P.O.POOTHOTTA, ERNAKULAM (RTD) AS WORKER GRADE II, O/O.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E)KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.G.P.SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.2345 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated 8th February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He worked as a CLR Worker under the respondents from 8.11.1976 to 19.1.1990. Later, he was absorbed into the regular establishment as Worker Grade II on 20.1.1990 and retired from service on 28.2.2003. Though, his CLR service was reckoned for the purpose of grant of 13 years' higher grade, the said service was not reckoned for granting pensionary benefits. His claim in this regard has been considered and rejected by the Government by Ext.P8. Challenging Ext.P8, the Writ Petition was filed. In the Writ Petition, he has raised yet another grievance also. According to him, though he was granted higher grade, the pay drawn by him at the time of retirement, in the higher grade, was not reckoned for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. The same was reduced. But, we notice that it is not a grievance raised before the departmental authorities or before the Government. It was raised for the first time before this Court. 2. The respondents resisted the prayers in the Writ Petition by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge after hearing W.A.2345/3005 2 both sides dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. Going by the stipulations in G.O.(MS)No.46/90/PW&T dated 18.5.1990, as evident from paragraph 7 of Ext.P8, we think, the view taken by the Government that CLR service could be counted only for the purpose of grant of higher grade and not for pension, in the normal course, cannot be faulted. The said service will be reckoned for the purpose of pension in the case of those who do not have 10 years' service, which is the minimum service fixed for grant of monthly pension. In the absence of any Rule or order enabling the appellant to count CLR service, as he is having more than 13 years' regular service, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Government in Ext.P8 or the judgment of the learned Single Judge affirming Ext.P8. 3. We notice that the grievance of the appellant regarding the reduction of his last drawn pay for computation of pensionary benefits is not a grievance raised before the authorities concerned. Therefore, we are not justified in going into that contention. But, the appellant is free to pursue that claim before the appropriate authorities, provided he moves by filing appropriate representation before the competent authority within two months from today. In that event, we are sure, the authority concerned will deal with the same appropriately, without delay, taking into account the fact that the W.A.2345/3005 3 appellant is a pensioner. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS