The court dismissed writ petitions filed by a retired teacher challenging the exclusion of her unqualified service period (1982-1989) from pension and grade promotion calculations, upholding the government's revised orders.
The writ petitions were dismissed; no order allowing reckoning of unqualified service for benefits was granted.
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 31934 of 2006 (B)
PETITIONER(S) :
T.M.PADMINI, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN,
ANUGRAH, POST KOTTAYAM POYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT, LPSA, ERUVATTY SOUTH LP SCHOOL, KUTHUPARAMBA, (RETIRED).
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE SECRETARY, (GENERAL EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PRINCY XAVIER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 28307 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 31934 of 2006 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2006.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2006 IN W.P(C).NO. 7447/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C.NO. 1168/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.10.2006.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT.)NO. 4274/06 GED DATED 30.09.2006.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.V.ASHA J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2016
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner. W.P.(C) No.31934 of 2006 was filed claiming grant of higher grade reckoning the period of unqualified service whereas the W.P.(C) No.28307 of 2007 was filed challenging the revision of terminal benefits, reducing the qualifying service excluding the period of unqualified service.
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
2
higher grade on the ground that Government did not conduct inservice course regularly and therefore she could undergo the course only by 1.6.1989. Petitioner's representation requesting for higher grade was rejected as per Ext.P4 order stating that the appointment of petitioner made contrary to the rules in force, was approved by Govt. as underqualified and her appointment was approved by the AEO without eligibility for salary; she was paid consolidated pay only and she was not entitled to any more benefits. It was further stated that there is no provision to reckon unqualified service for grades.
3
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
pension and allied benefits, as per Ext.P4 proceedings therein. Ext P3 produced therein, shows the details as to the computation of benefits with reference to the qualifying service of petitioner reckoning her entire service from 1.7.1982. Ext.P4 was issued by the Accountant General on 18.06.2007, on receipt of letter dated 20.03.2006 from the Assistant Educational Officer, revising the pensionary benefits admitted to the petitioner and reducing the qualifying service from 21 years to 17 years. All her terminal benefits were also revised on the basis of the reduction in qualifying service. Accordingly the revised pension payment order/commutation payment order/gratuity payment order were also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed this writ petition immediately after Ext.P4 order revising and reducing her pension was issued.
for reducing her qualifying service and to exclude her service from 01.07.1982 to 31.05.1989 for the purpose of pensionary benefits saying that there is no impediment in treating unqualified service either for pension or for the purpose of pay revision, higher grade or other benefits. According to her, she could not undergo in-service training since the Government did not conduct the said training for a long period.
4
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
the service rendered by the petitioner for the period from 01.07.1982 to 1.06.1989, when the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification was approved as unqualified service, which cannot be reckoned for any service benefits; service of the petitioner for the period from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2006 alone was liable to be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Accountant General had while issuing the pension payment orders originally, reckoned all the service rendered by the petitioner including the unqualified service, by mistake. The petitioner was paid only basic pay during the period of her unqualified service. She was not paid dearness allowance, HRA or any other benefits. She was granted increments only after she completed one year from date on which she commenced her qualifying/trained service. When the discrepancy in settling the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was detected the Accountant General was informed of the same and accordingly he initiated action for revising pensionary benefits and issued Ext.P4 whereby the total qualifying service got reduced from 21 to 17.
5
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
and persons with such qualification were not eligible for appointment even as unqualified teachers. The petitioner's appointment was thereafter approved as unqualified only on the basis of the Special orders issued by the Government. It is stated that the period upto 31.5.1989 was approved, without eligibility for salary. In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot have any valid claim to count the said service either for the purpose of pension or for the purpose of grade.
6
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
period from 01.07.1982 to 31.05.1989 was approved, that too as unqualified, as a special case and AEO approved it without eligibility for salary. It is therefore submitted that petitioner cannot have any claim on the basis of such service rendered by her.
7
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit controverting this. It is her own statement that she was paid only the basic pay/consolidated pay.
8
W.P.(C).Nos.31934 of 2006 & 28307 of 2007
payment counting the unqualified service. Immediately on detecting the discrepancies in reckoning the unqualified service, steps were taken to rectify the same and revised orders were issued. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner is not entitled to get either pensionary benefits or grade promotion reckoning her service for the period from 1.07.1982 to 31.03.1989, as it was restricted at the time of approval itself on the basis of the order passed by Government in 1993. In these circumstances the impugned action in both the cases do not suffer from any illegality. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents.
Hence these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired teacher can reckon unqualified service period for pensionary benefits and grade promotion.
Whether the revision of qualifying service by excluding the unqualified period was lawful.
Whether the initial inclusion of unqualified service in pension orders was illegal.
T.M.PADMINI
STATE OF KERALA
THE SECRETARY, (GENERAL EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
