IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20906 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.BALASUBRAMANIAN, MUSLIATH HOUSE, CHETHALOOR, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.MOHANAKANNAN MRS. A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MRS. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of September 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission for the post of Village Assistant in Palakkad District. List was published on 27.06.1986, but vacancies were not reported by the Government in time, it is urged. The petitioner was not appointed during the currency of the list. The petitioner and others approached this Court in O.P.No.5191/1989, which was disposed of directing the District Collector to look into the grievances of the petitioner. It seems that there was a long gap thereafter and ultimately petitioner again moved this Court in O.P.No.5978/2000 and pursuant to a direction issued by this Court to the Government to consider the petitioners representation, Ext.P1 order was passed by the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 39 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, directing that the petitioner be appointed as a L.D.Clerk / Village Assistant in Palakkad. Accordingly by Ext.P2 order, petitioner was appointed as a L.D.Clerk. W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009 2 2. Contending that he should have been appointed in 1988 or 1989, petitioner approached the Government by Ext.P3 representation dated 08.12.2006 seeking an extension of the service for a further period of 5 years. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 15.03.2007, this Court directed the Government to take a decision on Ext.P3 representation. Petitioner's claim was rejected as per Ext.P5. Petitioner then approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.20668/2008. This Court essentially considered the question as to whether petitioner can claim ex gratia pension. The matter was directed to be decided by the Government as per Ext.P7 judgment. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 supplementary representation. Government passed Ext.P9 order granting the petitioner ex gratia pension at the rate of Rs.1,200/- p.m. considering the service from 04.12.2001 to 31.05.2007 as qualifying service. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 to the extent to which he has been denied what he calls as regular pension and notional promotion which according to him must be granted by treating him as in service on the strength of inclusion in the rank list published in the year 1986. Other consequential reliefs have also been prayed for. W.P.(C). No. 20906 OF 2009 3 3. I am not impressed with the case put forward by the petitioner. Petitioner can claim regular service only pursuant to Ext.P2 order. Petitioner has accepted Ext.P1 and P2. If the service rendered by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 till the date when he retired from service on superannuation alone is considered, it will fall far short of the service requisite to make the petitioner eligible for regular pension. The Government, in these peculiar facts, decided to grant petitioner ex gratia pension. Petitioner cannot consider himself aggrieved by Ext.P9. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/