Case: V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and Ors

grounds set out hereinabove for the claim of the Appellant in para 8 were, once again, repeated before us. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also sought to emphasise that pension is a right vested in a Government servant and is not a bounty payable at the will and pleasure of the Government as also that pension is a social welfare measure and a post retirement entitlement; something with which we began our order. (D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 630 ; Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1971(2) SCC 330). 16. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Respondents, once again, that the Appellant could not be treated at par with those CLR workers, who were absorbed as SLR workers vide G.O. dated 20.8.1993 as the concept of regularisation of long and continuous service giving benefit to casual employees could not be equated with a casual employee getting a permanent job through KPSC. The Appellant had been enjoying the benefits as a direct recruit to a higher post since 1983, which were not available to his other original co-workers till 2001 when they were regularised by the G.O. dated 31.3.2001. Had the inter-departmental transfer to the Fisheries Department not have taken place, the Appellant in any case would not have been in a position to lay a claim. Conclusion: 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy before us, albeit in a limited contour. Leave was granted in this matter on 23.4.2010 but the matter has seen its fate of hearing only after a decade despite hearing being expedited when leave was granted! 18. We are unable to accept the rationale and reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 19. We begin by, once again, emphasising that the pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to rules, but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired Government employee to live with dignity in his winter of life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities. 20. While looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute about the time period spent by the Appellant as a CLR worker and his being at serial No. 2 for grant of pensionary benefits in the list of details of CLR workers had he continued as one. The Appellant was able to advance his career by going through a process of direct recruitment by the KPSC successfully. It is not a case of some unreasonable or improper benefit being extended to the Appellant but that he competed against others and was successfully recruited. 21. It is also not in dispute that he was transferred to the Fisheries Department albeit at his own request and demitted office from there after earning promotion. To say that the Appellant would be denied the benefit of the period spent as CLR worker for his pensionary benefit would be to treat his case as inferior one to the case of other CLR workers, who never went through a system of recruitment for regularisation but were regularised in the Fisheries Department to provide better working conditions and monetary benefits to the employees. Can it really be said that a regularly recruited person like the Appellant should not get the benefit which the other people who were CLR workers would get, having spent more than 7 years in that capacity? The answer, in our view, is in the negative, as it would amount to whittling away long years of service as a CLR worker of 1678 days (7 years 4 months and 23 days). 22. Had the Respondents not issued the G.O.s, no doubt the Appellant would have no claim. The claim of the Appellant arises from the G.O.s, which are beneficial efforts for the CLR workers to improve the conditions of working along with monetary benefits. The Appellant did work for the aforesaid long period of time as a CLR worker and should, thus, be entitled to the same on parity vis-à-vis other CLR workers. The Appellant was at serial No. 2 in the aforementioned list and would have been so absorbed when 29 posts were created. In fact, only 27 posts out of these were filled in. It is thus not even a case where no post existed or that it would affect anybody else, or that the Government would be compelled to create a post for the Appellant. In fact, in terms of the G.O. dated 21.8.2006 an equalisation has been given of 200 days of work as a CLR worker to one years regular service for the purposes of pension. While one would commend such effort by the State Government, it would be very unreasonable to deny this to the Appellant in view of the aforesaid facts. 23. What also weighs with us is that the Appellant is being deprived of the maximum pensionable service which would be permissible to him if his period of CLR service is recognised as qualifying service and there is no reason to deny the same to him when other CLR workers have got this benefit at the time of their absorption and subsequent regularisation as SLR workers and who would have, by virtue of joining at a later point of time, rendered less service. We also feel that Rule 13 of the Service Rules would possibly come to the aid of the rationale we seek to adopt as on absorption in the establishment, such persons are given the benefit of counting 50 per cent of their earlier work service prior to absorption for the purposes of pension.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]. Leave was granted in this matter on 23.4.2010 but the matter has seen its fate of hearing only after a decade despite hearing being expedited when leave was granted!18. We are unable to accept the rationale and reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case.19. We begin by, once again, emphasising that the pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to rules, but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired Government employee to live with dignity in his winter of life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities.20. While looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute about the time period spent by the Appellant as a CLR worker and his being at serial No. 2 for grant of pensionary benefits in the list of details of CLR workers had he continued as one. The Appellant was able to advance his career by going through a process of direct recruitment by the KPSC successfully. It is not a case of some unreasonable or improper benefit being extended to the Appellant but that he competed against others and was successfully recruited.21. It is also not in dispute that he was transferred to the Fisheries Department albeit at his own request and demitted office from there after earning promotion. To say that the Appellant would be denied the benefit of the period spent as CLR worker for his pensionary benefit would be to treat his case as inferior one to the case of other CLR workers, who never went through a system of recruitment for regularisation but were regularised in the Fisheries Department to provide better working conditions and monetary benefits to the employees. Can it really be said that a regularly recruited person like the Appellant should not get the benefit which the other people who were CLR workers would get, having spent more than 7 years in that capacity? The answer, in our view, is in the negative, as it would amount to whittling away long years of service as a CLR worker of 1678 days (7 years 4 months and 23 days).22. Had the Respondents not issued the G.O.s, no doubt the Appellant would have no claim. The claim of the Appellant arises from the G.O.s, which are beneficial efforts for the CLR workers to improve the conditions of working along with monetary benefits. The Appellant did work for the aforesaid long period of time as a CLR worker and should, thus, be entitled to the same on parity vis-à-vis other CLR workers. The Appellant was at serial No. 2 in the aforementioned list and would have been so absorbed when 29 posts were created. In fact, only 27 posts out of these were filled in. It is thus not even a case where no post existed or that it would affect anybody else, or that the Government would be compelled to create a post for the Appellant. In fact, in terms of the G.O. dated 21.8.2006 an equalisation has been given of 200 days of work as a CLR worker to one years regular service for the purposes of pension. While one would commend such effort by the State Government, it would be very unreasonable to deny this to the Appellant in view of the aforesaid facts.23. What also weighs with us is that the Appellant is being deprived of the maximum pensionable service which would be permissible to him if his period of CLR service is recognised as qualifying service and there is no reason to deny the same to him when other CLR workers have got this benefit at the time of their absorption and subsequent regularisation as SLR workers and who would have, by virtue of joining at a later point of time, rendered less service. We also feel that Rule 13 of the Service Rules would possibly come to the aid of the rationale we seek to adopt as on absorption in the establishment, such persons are given the benefit of counting 50 per cent of their earlier work service prior to absorption for the purposes of pension.