IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22931 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V. SUKUMARAN, SARALA BHAVAN, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS U.D. (HIGHER GRADE) IN THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No. 22931 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2-75930/83 DATED 25.11.1983 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REGULARISATION DATED 5.4.88 IN NO.A1-22054/87 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DECLARING SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF PROBATION DATED 10.10.1989 IN NO.A1- 24926/89 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O (MS) NO.25/93/F&hd dated 20.8.1993 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O (MS) 16/01/F&HD DATED 31.03.2001 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) 16/06/F&HD DATED 13.7.2006 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SCHEME IN G.O (P) 23/06/F&PD DATED 21.8.2006 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2006 SUBMITTED TO THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIZHINJAM EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CASUAL LABOURERS DETAILS IN E/856/06 DATED 4.12.2006 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 14607/A1/06/F&PD DATED 10.1.07 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.10/07 AD DATED 19.1.2007 EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.14607/A1/2006/F&PD DATED 16.5.2007 /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th January,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is seeking various reliefs including a direction to reckon his service as a CLR worker as qualifying service for pension. Even though he has been working in revenue department, now he is working in Fisheries Department after getting inter-departmental transfer. He is now working as U.D Clerk Higher Grade in the office of the Director of Fisheries (2nd respondent). Initially he joined service as a CLR worker on 7.7.1976 in the erstwhile pilot project of Pearl Culture Farm at Vizhinjam in Thiruvanthapuram. He worked there up to 29.11.1983. He had 7 years four months and 23 days of CLR service. Later he was advised by the PSC to Kannur District as L.D Clerk on 9.11.1983. According to him, he got relieved from the service of the Pearl Culture Farm, Vizhinham and reported the District Collectorate, Kannur on 30.11.1983. Subsequently he secured an inter- departmental transfer from Revenue Department and he W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 2 joined the Fisheries Department on 18.9.1997. His service was regularized as per Exhibit-P2. Petitioner is relying upon Exhibits P4 to P7 to contend for the position that the period of CLR service from 7.7.1976 to 29.11.1983 should be considered as a qualifying service for pension. He filed Exhibit-P8 representation in that regard and finally the same has been rejected by the Government as per Exhibit- P12. 2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Rule 11 of Part III of the KSR and in the light of Exhibits P5, P6 and P11 orders issued by the Government, the period from 7.7.1976 to 29.11.1983 as CLR could be reckoned for the purpose of pension. A reading of Exhibit-P5 only shows that the Government created Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR) to accommodate 27 CLR workers who have completed 500 days as on 1.4.1987 They were also granted benefits like provident fund and pension by the same order as recommended by the Director of Fisheries. Going by P11, the Department W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 3 introduced a pension scheme for departmental Farm Labourers calculating their casual service also and there was a direction to the various authorities to implement the same. 3. Going by the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in the Revenue Department pursuant to the selection by the PSC. It is not a case where he can compare himself to a CLR worker who obtained regularization as SLR and who is governed by the various Government Orders Exhibits P5, P7, P11 etc. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have made it clear that the benefit under the provision in the G.O.(P) No.23/06/F&PD dated 21.8.2006 is applicable only to those CLR workers who were regualrised in service as SLR workers as per G.O.(MS) No.25/93/F&PD Dated 20.8.1993. It is pointed out that as the petitioner does not come within the purview of G.O (MS) No.25/93/F&PD dated 20.8.1993 and G.O (MS) No.16/01/F&PD dated 31.3.2001, he is not eligible for the benefit ordered in G.O (P) No.23/06/F&PD Dated W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 4 21.8.2006. 5. It is clear from the facts that the petitioner is not a person who was absorbed in the Fisheries Department from the category of CLR worker. The service conditions of SLR workers and petitioner presently are totally different. There is no Government order or any provision under the relevant rules to count the period of service as a CLR worker as qualifying service for pension in respect of a person like the petitioner who secured appointment through the PSC as LDC. Rule 11 Part III of the KSR only entitles the Government to grant declaration as envisaged in the said provision. In the absence of such a declaration so far, the petitioner cannot improve the situation by relying upon Exhibit-P5, P6 and P11. Therefore, the view taken by the Government is perfectly justified. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 5 W.P ( C) No.22931 of 2007 6