Allowed

P.Aboobacker v. the Director of Municipal Administration

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010WP(C)/212/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pensionary credit for pre-retirement service in a municipality. The High Court interpreted a 2009 Government Order dispensing with pro-rata liability payments and directed the respondent to quantify benefits including that service.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to pass fresh orders within 8 weeks to quantify pensionary benefits reckoning the petitioner's entire service without pro-rata liability payment.

P.Aboobacker Vs the Director of Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 212 of 2009(A)

¶5

-----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

P.ABOOBACKER, S/O. LATE ABDULLA, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINABA MANZIL, 7TH MILE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA).

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRTION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR.

¶14

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C). NO.212/2009-A:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 25/04/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3.

¶21

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/09/07 BY PETITIONER TO LOCAL FUND AUDIT OFFICE.

¶22

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/01/2008 BY PETITIONER TO DIST. OFFICE OF ECONOMICS & STATISTICS DEPARTMENT.

¶23

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/01/08 FROM DIST. OFFICE, ECONOMICS & STATISTICS, KASARAGOD.

¶24

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/04/08 BY R.2. TO PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/04/08 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT.

¶26

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/04/08 BY PETITIONER TO DIRECTOR, ECONOMICS & STATISTICS DEPARTMENT.

¶27

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/05/08 BY JOINT DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT.

¶28

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/08/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/11/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1.

¶30

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/11/09 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

W.P.(C) NO.212 OF 2009 (A)

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶37

--------------------------------------------------

¶38

--------------------------------------------------

¶39

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2010

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Petitioner joined as L.D. Investigator in the Economics and Statistics Department of the Government of Kerala with effect from 6.2.1986. He continued in that post till 29.11.1988, when he was advised for appointment in the Electrical Eepartment of the Trissur Municipality, where he joined with effect from 30.11.1988. In that post he continued till 28.2.2007 and on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service as U.D clerk. On retirement, his terminal benefits were quantified reckoning his service in the Trissur Municipality, without giving credit to the service rendered by the petitioner in Economics and Statistics Department. Seeking addition of the aforesaid service petitioner submitted representations, which were rejected. It was thereupon that this writ petition has been filed.

¶42

In the counter affidavit respondents are relying on the Note attached to Rule 20 of Part III KSR and Government Orders, which provide that only on remittance of prorata contribution by the previous employer, will the department to pay pension to

¶43

WPC.No. 212/2009

¶44

:2 :

¶45

the retired employees, giving credit to the previous service also. Along with the reply affidavit petitioner has produced GO(P). No.517/09/Fin. dated 19.11.2009, relevant portion of which reads as under.

¶46

“Government have been processing many requests for payment of pro-rata pensionary liability to and from such Institutions and it has been decided to dispense with the payment of pro-rata pensionary liability since it is a reciprocal arrangement and the institutions are aided by Government funds. In the circumstances, Government are pleased to dispense with the condition of payment of pro-rata pensionary liability by the former employer while reckoning the service put in by Government employees in the Panchayath/Municipal Common Service and Universities prior to their entry in State Government service including aided school service and vice-versa, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The cases whereby payments towards pro-rata pension liability have already been made need not be reopened. It shall be applicable in all other cases, including in cases where the payments have become due but not paid.“

¶47

From the aforesaid provisions of GO(P).No.517/09/Fin.

¶48

dated 19.11.2009, it is evident that the Government have dispensed with the earlier requirement that the previous employer should discharge the pro-rata liability. If that be so,

¶49

WPC.No. 212/2009

¶50

:3 :

¶51

without payment of the pro-rata liability by the previous employer, petitioner is entitled to have the pensionary benefits quantified for the entire service and for that reason the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, in the light of the above observations. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

¶52

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶54

vi/

P.Aboobacker v. the Director of Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Aboobacker v. the Director of Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Others Vs Lt.Col.v.C.Poulose

Dr.N.Meenakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Achamma Joseph Vs the Director,Urban Affairs & Another

M/S Mir Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.Abdul Nazar

K.O.Subran Vs State of Kerala and Others

T.C.Jaya Vs the Homeo Medical Officer and Others