Allowed

M.R.Raghava Varier v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2013WA/420/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this writ appeal regarding an incumbent's pension benefits. It held that the University's acceptance of contribution and sanction of the claim in 2002 entitled the appellant to have past service reckoned for pension from that date, despite a prospective Government Order.

What did the court decide?

University directed to pay revised arrears of pension till date and future revised pension within three months.

M.R.Raghava Varier Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013/7TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶6

WA.No. 420 of 2009 ( )

¶7

JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15860/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-11-2008

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

M.R.RAGHAVA VARIER MANALIL THRIKKOVIL, POST CHELIYA, EDAKKULAM-QUILANDI, PIN-673 306.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DT.

¶14

DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.NO.420/09

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S EXTS.:

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) 228/01/FIN. DATED 2.2.2002.

¶21

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.193/2004/FIN. DATED 20.4.2004.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXTS.: NIL.

Srd

(True copy)

P.S. To Judge.

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

W.A. No.420 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2013

¶29

Judgment

¶30

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶31

After delivering the judgment in the open court, while going through the records, we came across Ext.P5 which would definitely change the entire scenario so far as this appeal is concerned, therefore, we listed the matter for being spoken to. Heard again.

¶32

The writ petitioner-appellant was one of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge which ended in a common judgment in W.P.(C) No.15860 of 2006. The learned Single Judge in the said judgment, after rejecting the claim of the appellant, opined that whatever benefit enured to the employees under the Government Order dated 2.2.2001 is not applicable as it is prospective in operation and not retrospective. In other words, the appellant having retired prior to Government Order dated 2.2.2001, was not entitled for the benefit of counting previous service rendered by him in Government Schools

¶33

W.A.No.420/09

¶34

¶35

between 1963 to 1972 for the purpose of computing pension.

¶36

It is not in dispute that appellant joined the service of the University of Calicut (2^nd respondent) and worked for 23 years as Epigraphist in the Department of History. It is undisputed fact that prior to that, he worked for more than 9 years in various Government schools as indicated above. At the time of retirement in 1996, though the previous service rendered in various Government schools was noticed, it was not reckoned while calculating terminal benefits.

¶37

As a matter of fact, the records reveal; to the letter of the appellant, a reply was sent from University as per Ext.P4 dated 24.09.2002 directing the appellant to remit an amount of Rs.9,289/- to the University fund towards pension contribution along with interest upto 30.09.2002. The same was remitted by the appellant on 28.09.2002 as noted at Ext.P4 itself. Ext.P5 is the order dated 15.11.2002 wherein the request of the appellant for reckoning his past service was referred to and even acknowledged the remittance of the amount as indicated in Ext.P4. The Vice Chancellor of the University sanctioned on 2.11.2002 the request of the appellant to reckon the previous services put in by the appellant at various schools as detailed

¶38

W.A.No.420/09

¶39

¶40

below for pensionary benefits:

¶41

1/10/61 to 1/10/65 - Govt. Lower Primary School, Ollur. 2. 10/10/66 to 30/10/68 - Govt. Teacher Training Institute for men, Kozhikode.

¶42

30/10/68 to 6/12/72 - Govt. Ganapath Girls High School, Calicut.

¶43

It is also on record, as per Ext.P7, when audit came to be conducted by the Local Fund Audit, an objection was raised that Government Order dated 2.2.2001 is prospective in operation, therefore, the appellant was not entitled for such benefit as noted at Ext.P5. When the rejection of the claim by the University came into existence, this was informed to the appellant by letter dated 26.12.2002. Therefore, the appellant by Ext.P6 letter dated 15.11.003 intimated the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, University of Calicut that as per the directions of the University, he had already remitted the amount. Later on, Ext.P7 came to be issued by the Government addressed to the appellant wherein the Government said, the pension cases already settled or pending settlement, will not be reopened in the light of Government Order dated 2.2.2001. Ext.P8 is the reply sent by the appellant dated 1.1.2004. After that, he approached this court in the year 2006 by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶44

The learned Single Judge, without referring to these

¶45

W.A.No.420/09

¶46

¶47

factual situations, referred to Government Order dated 2.2.2001 which is prospective in operation and opined that even otherwise the representation of the appellant being only in 2004, he approached the Court much later, therefore, the Writ Petition came to be rejected.

¶48

What we notice from the records is, but for the local fund audit objection, the University had no objection whatsoever towards the claim of the appellant which is evident from Ext.P5. So far as Government is concerned, the Government is not put to any financial loss on account of this, as it is the University which has to pay the pension in the light of the fact that already prorata contributions has been paid along with interest by the appellant as per Exts.P4 and P5. As a matter of fact, it ought to have been routed through the Government to the University, but the University, on its own, addressed a letter to the party directly and therefore, the appellant has directly remitted the amount to the account of the University as directed by the University, which is accepted also by the University. In the light of this factual situation, having accepted the amount way back in 2002, at least from the date of sanction by the Registrar as indicated at Ext.P5, the appellant is entitled for pension at the revised rate from

¶49

W.A.No.420/09

¶50

¶51

2.11.2002, i.e., reckoning the past service rendered by him in various Government schools at different spells prior to joining of the University. We make it clear the appellant is not entitled for any interest on the arrears of pension having regard to the fact that he approached this court only in 2006 though he was aware of depositing the amount along with interest in 2002 itself. The University is directed to pay the revised arrears of pension till date within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as also revised pension in future.

¶52

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶53

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶54

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶55

srd

M.R.Raghava Varier v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Raghava Varier v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital Vs State of Kerala

Nithya Gopinath Vs University of Kerala

N.R.Suthan Vs Deputy Inspector General

Gireesh Vs Smt.Bindu

M.N.Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala