A two-judge bench dismissed a writ appeal against the Single Judge's order denying the appellant's claim to reckon an eight-year break in service for pension. The Court held that under Rule 31 of Part-III KSR, broken service exceeding one year is not counted for pension purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/26TH PHALGUNA 1933
WA.No. 78 of 2012 () IN WPC/9308/2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.9308/2006 DATED 22-12-2011
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
E.ABDUL VAHID
LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF ARABIC UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA,
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, CONVENOR SCREENING AND SLECTION COMMITTEE
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & B) KERALA,
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
BY MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
W.A.No.78 of 2012
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The short question arising for our decision is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to reckon the 8 years' broken period of service the appellant has suffered for
want of vacancy for the purpose of grant of pension.
appellant and learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
W.A.No.78/2012
-2-
only two years service prior to the break in 1984 for the purpose of pension. The Rule expressly bars reckoning of period of break of service in excess of one year for the purpose of pension. Learned Single Judge declined the appellant's prayer for reckoning service. Even though learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Single Bench decision of this Court in Mohammed Kunhi v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in 2011(2) ILR (Kerala) 846, we do not find the decision supports appellant's case. So long as the principal Rule does not provide for counting of the period of ouster, which is as many as 8 years service in this case, for reckoning for pension, the appellant was rightly declined the prayer sought for i.e. counting of 8 years' broken period of service for the purpose of pension.
We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
jg
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to reckon an 8-year broken period of service for pension grant.
Whether Rule 31 of Part-III KSR permits inclusion of broken service exceeding one year for pension purposes.
Whether the decision in Mohammed Kunhi supports counting long-term service breaks for pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Kunhi v. State of Kerala and OthersRelied on¶37
2011(2) ILR (Kerala) 846 · Who else cites this
E. Abdul Vahid
State of Kerala
Principal Secretary, Higher Education
Director of Collegiate Education
Additional Director of Collegiate Education
Accountant General (A & B) Kerala
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
