Allowed

Havvaumma K.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016WP(C)/10729/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance of a writ petition where a teacher challenged the rejection of her claim for pension benefits based on past service. The court held that resignation only forfeits the specific appointment spell, not previously approved service, and directed calculation of benefits. (60 words)

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to reckon nine years of service including earlier spells for pension and benefits; authorities to calculate and disburse benefits within four months.

Havvaumma K.V. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10729 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

HAVVAUMMA K.V.,

¶8

W/O.MOOSAKKUTTY V.K., ARABIC TEACHER (FULL TIME), AJBS KOTTAPADAM, P.O.THALAKKASSERI - 679 538, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KUMARANELLOR, PALAKKAD - 679 552.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRITHALA.

¶15

5. MANAGER, AJB SCHOOL KOTTAPADAM, P.O.THALAKKASSERI 679 538, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

6. MANAGER, AJB SCHOOL PADINHARANAD, THRITHALA SUB DISTRICT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON 14-11-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 10729 of 2013 (M)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT.P-1	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24.07.1978 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.8.1978.
EXT.P-2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.6.1981 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.9.1981.
EXT.P-3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER VOUCHING THE APPOINTMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PETITIONER FROM 1.2.1984 TO 31.1.1989.
EXT.P-4	A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.2.1989 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/D/1290/90 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.3.1990.
EXT.P-6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.1996 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7	A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17.1.2011 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.65076/S2/11/G.EDN DATED 3.8.2012.
EXT.P-9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O(MS)NO. 131/2014.G.EDN. DATED 17.07.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

'C.R'

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶31

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 10729 of 2013

¶32

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th November, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“i). writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside Exhibit P8 as legally unsustainable.

¶36

ii) writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent AEO to reckon 9 years of service rendered by the petitioner from 24.7.1978 in four different spells and grant all service benefits and other consequential benefits viz. increment, higher grade, pay revision benefits etc. reckoning the aforesaid four spells of service.

¶37

iii) writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent to reckon the past service of the petitioner from 24.7.1978 leaving aside period out of service as qualifying service for pension and other terminal benefits.

¶38

iv) declare that the petitioner is entitled to reckon 9 years of service rendered by the petitioner from 24.7.1978 in four different spells and grant all service benefits and other consequential benefits viz. increment, higher grade, pay revision benefits etc. reckoning the aforesaid four spells of service.”

¶39

The petitioner was initially appointed as full-time Arabic

¶40

Teacher on 24.7.1978 in the 5^th respondent's school and it was duly approved. She was retrenched on 30.4.1980 due to abolition of post. She was again appointed as leave substitute from 13.6.1981 to

¶41

¶42

WP(C).10729/13

¶43

31.1.1984 in the 6^th respondent's school and the spell was duly approved. The petitioner was again appointed as per Exhibit P3 as a leave substitute from 1.2.1984 to 31.1.1989 in 6^th respondent's school and the appointment was duly approved. Thereafter, she was appointed from 1.2.1989 to 31.1.1994 in the same school. The petitioner resigned from the post due to personal problems on 30.6.1989. The resignation was accepted.

¶44

On 1.7.1996 the petitioner was again appointed in the 5^th respondent's school in a regular vacancy and she continued in the school as Arabic Teacher until her retirement on 31.3.2015. The petitioner submitted requests before the educational authorities to reckon the past service for all service benefits and pension. By Exhibit P8, the Government rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-C of KER read with Rule 29 of Part-III KSR. Exhibit P8 Government decision denying the benefit of past service is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in Subhadra v. State of Kerala [1996(1) KLT 679] and Lilly V.A. v. State of Kerala and others

¶47

¶48

WP(C).10729/13

¶49

[2016 KHC 414] to contend that the petitioner is entitled to count the entire broken spells of service as qualifying service.

¶50

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent admitting the factual aspects as set out in the writ petition. However, it is contended that the contention of the petitioner that the broken spells of service as Arabic teacher prior to her resignation are liable to be counted as qualifying service for increment, higher grade and pay revision is not at all sustainable in view of the various provisions contained in the Kerala Education Rules as well as the Kerala Service Rules. As per Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-C KER, the premature resignation of a teacher from the school entails forfeiture of past service. Hence the past broken service rendered by the incumbent cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner resigned from service with effect from 30.6.1989, while working at the 6^th respondent's school and hence her past service including the pre-resignation period cannot be counted for any monetary benefits including pension.

¶51

I have considered the contentions advanced. The only question which arises for consideration is with regard to the effect of the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 30.6.1989. It is clear

¶52

¶53

WP(C).10729/13

¶54

that the petitioner's three earlier spells of service as Arabic Teacher had been approved. They are independent spells of approved service. The petitioner was appointed for the fourth time in a leave vacancy of five years duration. Her appointment in this vacancy was with effect from 1.2.1989. On 30.6.1989, she submitted her resignation. Evidently, this resignation can relate only to her appointment with effect from 1.2.1989. Applying the provisions of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-C KER and Rule 29 of Part III KSR, the forfeiture of past service can only mean, forfeiture of the service of the petitioner in the spell in question, i.e., with effect from 1.2.1989. The resignation submitted by her cannot have the effect of obliterating her previous approved service in earlier vacancies.

¶55

In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the earlier approved spells of service put in by the petitioner are liable to be counted for service benefits including pension. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent does not raise any contention against the counting of the first three spells of service as qualifying service, except to state that such service is also forfeited by the resignation on 30.6.1989. Having held that the resignation on 30.6.1989 can only result in forfeiture of the petitioner's past service in respect of that particular appointment, i.e., with effect from 1.2.1989,

¶56

¶57

WP(C).10729/13

¶58

the petitioner would be entitled to count the earlier service for service benefits. It is declared so. The respondents shall pass orders revising the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner by refixing the pay and pensionary benefits in terms of what is stated above. Orders in this regard shall be passed without further delay and the monetary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶60

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

vgs

Havvaumma K.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Havvaumma K.V. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.U.Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others

D.Gopakumar Vs Cusat

C.J.George Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Vijayan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.Balarajan Nambiar Vs Union of India

T.G.Thulasidas Vs Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.