This writ petition challenged the refusal of pension benefits to a petitioner who was discharged from service after one and a half years. The High Court rejected the claim due to lack of minimum qualifying service.
Writ petition dismissed with costs.
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 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 37457 of 2009 (B)
PETITIONER(S):
KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, PUTHUCHERI HOUSE, P.O. KLAPPANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 1609, PIONEER COMPANY, GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE.
2. THE OFFICER COMMANDING, SOUTHERN COMMAND, GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE, PUNE.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO SURFACE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 37457 of 2009 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE SMART CARD.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
P. V. ASHA, J.
------------------------ W.P.(C) No.37457 of 2016
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondent to grant pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of his discharge form service.
Due to reduction in establishment, he was discharged from service on 04-05-1971. In the discharge certificate Ext.P1, the
reason stated for his discharge is “Service no longer required. Reduction in establishment”. The petitioner's case is that subsequently on reconstitution of GREF he went to rejoin the Force, but he was not allowed to join on account of the fact that he was over aged. In support of his contention he has produced Ext.P4 letter issued on 15-05-1987. In this letter it
was stated that all retrenched personnel were given
W.P.(C) No.37457 of 2016
2
opportunity for re-appointment as per advertisement No.4/82 and 1/83 and all those who had applied for re-appointment pursuing that advertisement within the stipulated period and who were found suitable, were considered for the appointment; since the petitioner did not submit any application pursuant to those advertisements, it was not possible to give him appointment; at the belated stage when he was over aged, it was not possible for the respondent to appoint him by granting any relaxation; the age limit for appointment in GREF is from 18 to 25 years as per the revised Rules.
W.P.(C) No.37457 of 2016
3
duties and pay are regulated by the Government. According to him there is no minimum period of service is required for sanctioning pension. Petitioner further claims that since he is granted canteen facility, he is entitled to pension also.
was issued inviting applications regarding recruitment, petitioner did not respond to the advertisement, whereas others similarly situated like him responded to it in time and got re-appointment. After considerable delay, it was only in the year 1987 that petitioner submitted an application on 18-04-1987, requesting for re-appointment. Being over aged at that time, he was not considered for re-appointment. It is further stated that even though the petitioner has been granted canteen facility, that cannot be the criteria to decide his eligibility for pension. The eligibility for pension is
W.P.(C) No.37457 of 2016
4
determined by CCS Pension Rules 1972, according to which a minimum of 10 years is the qualifying service required under
Rule 48(A) of CCS Pension Rules 1972.
qualifying service required and that he is entitled to pension after addition of 5 years service along with his actual service,
since he was discharged from service. Assuming that there is any such provision, even that addition of five years' service will not make him eligible for pension, unless and until he is having the requisite qualifying service. No provision is seen which exempts the GREF personnel from having the requisite qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In the CCS (Pension) Rules, also no provision is seen which provides for grant of pension to those who do not have the qualifying service of at least 10 years of service, as can be seen from Rule 48, 48(A) and 49 of CCS Pension Rules. No specific provision in any of the rules or orders is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the claim of
W.P.(C) No.37457 of 2016
5
petitioner for pension.
In the above circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition.
Sd/-
P. V. ASHA, JUDGE.
SKK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant discharged due to reduction in establishment after less than 10 years of service is eligible for pension under Rule 48(A) of CCS Pension Rules 1972.
Whether canteen facility grants entitlement to pension in absence of qualifying service.
Whether discretionary addition of 5 years to actual service renders the petitioner eligible for pension.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU
THE UNION OF INDIA
P.V. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
