Allowed

Satheesan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/11966/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition by a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board seeking reckoning of prior service in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for pension purposes. The Court held that since the application was made in 1997 under an order not requiring pro-rata remittance, the petitioner is entitled to benefits despite the Service Book arriving later under a strict

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P8 quashed; service from 28.09.1982 to 06.01.1988 reckoned towards qualifying service for pension; respondents directed to re-fix pensionary benefits.

Satheesan Nair Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11966 of 2011 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

S.SATHEESAN NAIR, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT(RETIRED), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD RESIDING AT PUTHEN PURAYIDOM, VALATHUNGL POST OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶12

3. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION AUTHORISATION), OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, S.C R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, S.C

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 11966 of 2011 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL DIVISION DATED 25.01.1997.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR OF THE BOARD DATED 10.11.2004 SENT TO THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22.12.2004 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.11.2005 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.2006.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.10.2009 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.08.2009 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U

¶37

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner, who joined the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board' for short) on 06.01.1988, has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the order Ext.P5 of the Board rejecting his request for reckoning the prior service rendered by him in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC' for short) towards pension.

¶40

The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier in the Board w.e.f 06.01.1988. Prior to that, he had rendered service in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for the period from 28.09.1982 to 06.01.1988 as a Conductor. On the basis of the request made by the petitioner, the Board had, as per Ext.P1 letter dated 25.01.1997, requested the Managing Director of the KSRTC to forward the Service Book of the petitioner in order to consider his case for the service benefits in the Board. He retired

¶41

from service on 31.3.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner continued to submit representations requesting to reckon the

¶42

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U 2

¶43

service in the KSRTC towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Based on one of these requests, the Chief Engineer, as per Ext.P4 letter dated 7.11.2005, informed the petitioner that the prior service rendered in the Kerala State Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies can be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in the Board, subject to realisation of pro rata pension liability from the former employer. Therefore the Regional Audit Office was asked to remit the pro rata pension liability to the Board.

¶44

Thereafter by Ext.P5 letter dated 8.5.2006 the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSRTC informed the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Board that, there is no provision in the KSRTC for remittance of pro rata pension contribution of employees who joined other Departments or Undertakings.

¶45

Still later, the Accounts Officer by Ext.P6 letter dated 22.10.2009 stated that, the petitioner did not apply to reckon his prior service within the prescribed time limit allowed by the Board Orders dated 1.9.2005 or 12.2.2008. Hence his request would not be entertained and accordingly his Service Book was returned. On his subsequent representation, the Chief Engineer by Ext.P7 letter addressed to the Executive Engineer Electrical

¶46

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U 3

¶47

Division, Kollam stated that, the Board cannot consider the petitioner's request to reckon the prior service in the KSRTC for pensionary benefits. It was stated therein that, even though the Service Book of the petitioner was called for from the KSRTC as per letter dated 21.5.1997 of the Board, the Service Book was received from the KSRTC only in 11/2004. Hence as per the Board Order - B.O.No.FM.1263/2003 dated 3.9.2003, which prevailed at the relevant time, prior service in the KSRTC would be counted only if the former employer remitted the pro-rata pension liability on a service share basis. Since the KSRTC informed that there was no provision for such remittance of prorata pension contribution, the petitioner's case could not be considered for reckoning the prior service in the KSRTC towards his qualifying service.

¶48

Thereupon, the petitioner again approached the Chief Engineer (HRM) by Ext.P9 representation pointing out that in the case of M/s.V.Madhavan, T.Xavier, R.Sasikumar and K.Mehbookhan, permission was sanctioned on 16.12.08, 21.1.2006 and 16.4.2003 to reckon their service rendered in the KSRTC for the purpose of pension. This writ petition was filed at that stage.

¶49

¶50

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U

¶51

The 2^nd respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit stating that, on 24.1.1997 the petitioner requested for reckoning his service in the KSRTC without his Service Book since the same was with the KSRTC. At the time when the Service Book was received in the Board in 11/2004, the Board Order existed with respect to reckoning of prior service for pension was B.O No.1263/2003 dated 3.9.2003, according to which, the said service can be reckoned only if the former employer remits prorata contribution on a service share basis. Since there is no provision in the KSRTC for such remittance, it was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits prayed for. As far as the cases referred to in Ext.P8 letter in the case of M/s.Madhavan. T.Xavier, R.Sasikumar and K.Mehbookhan are concerned, it was stated that, their requests were before 12.11.2002 and as per B.O No.424/92 dated 12.3.1992, which existed at the time of their application, such remittance of contribution was not necessary. But by the time the petitioner's Service Book was received the relevant order in force was B.O No.1263/2003 dated 3.9.2004, which insisted pro-rata contribution.

¶52

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶53

¶54

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U

¶55

petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC as well as the Board.

¶56

The petitioner's application was rejected firstly on the ground that his Service Book from the KSRTC was received only in the year 2004 when the order in force was the one issued in 2003, according to which the former employer had to remit prorata contribution. But the fact remains that the petitioner had submitted his application as early as on 24.1.1997, as evident from Ext P1. The respondents have denied the benefit of his prior service on the basis of the date on which the Service Book was received. In the case of those covered by Ext.P8, the Board has reckoned their service in the KSRTC without getting the pro rata contribution, on the ground that they submitted their applications prior to 2002. The relevant portion in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of the Board reads as follows:

¶57

“It is submitted that the prior service of Sri.v.Madhavan, Sri.T.Xavier, Sri.K.Mehaboob Khan and Sri.R.Sasikumar were reckoned as per their requests before 12.11.2002 in accordance with the B.O.No.424/92 dated 12.3.1992, which existed at the time of their applications. The Board Order that existed at the time of the petitioner's application was B.O.No.1263/2003 dated 3.9.2004. According to the above B.O, pro-rata pension contribution from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was essential. The case of Sri.Y.Babu is not relevant in this case since the subject matter of that

¶58

¶59

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U

¶60

case is entirely different from the petitioner's case.”

¶61

In that view of the matter, there is no justification in denying that benefit to the petitioner. As in their case, he is also entitled to the benefit of prior service in terms of the B.O No.424/94/ESGT/1960.91 dated 12.3.1992, which did not insist pro rata contribution from the former employer. As the petitioner's application was very well before the respondents as early as in 1997, there is no justification for denying that benefit to him when such benefits were granted to those who requested before 12.3.2002.

¶62

The Board has also stated that in certain cases this Court has directed the KSRTC to remit pro-rata pension and based on such direction the prior service was reckoned. But in this case the petitioner has submitted his application in 1997. Therefore , I do not think it necessary to consider the question of the liability of the KSRTC to pay pro rata pension which was insisted only as per B.O issued in 2003. It is also pertinent to note that, the Service Book which was necessary for the purpose of reckoning prior service was under the custody of the KSRTC and not with the petitioner so that he can be denied the benefit on the basis of the date on which the Service Book was received

¶63

W.P(C) No.11966 of 2011-U 7

¶64

from the KSRTC. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit the Board has admitted that the petitioner had made his request on 24.1.1997. The petitioner will also be entitled to get his prior service in the KSRTC on the basis of the order which prevailed in 1997, without insisting for pro-rata contribution.

¶65

Under the above circumstances, Ext.P8 is quashed. It is declared that the service rendered by the petitioner in the KSRTC is liable to be reckoned towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and there shall be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to re-fix the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner reckoning the service rendered by him in the KSRTC for the period from 28.9.1982 to 6.1.1988 and to grant him all consequential benefits on the basis of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶67

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶68

rtr/

Satheesan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

V.Velayudhan Chettiar Vs Kseb

Ishabi Vs the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors.

Bhargavikutty K. Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Supriya Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs the Kongad Grama Panchayath and Another