Allowed

K.P. Rema v. the Dist.Education Officer, Tellicherry

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/90/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition quashing a revised pension and gratuity order. It held that an approved but interrupted period of service counts for increments under Rule 61(4) of Kerala Education Rules and cannot be excluded from qualifying service for retirement benefits. The petitioner is directed to receive benefits calculated as per the original order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order quashed. Direction to pay retiral benefits as per Ext.P4 with consequential benefits. Arrears of pension to be released within four months.

K.P. Rema Vs the Dist.Education Officer… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 90 of 2008 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.P. REMA, W/O. BHARATHAN V., KRISHNA PRASADAM, PATTIYAM, PUTHIYATHERU, P.O. PATHAYAKUNNU, PIN-670 691, RETIRED HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K., SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TELLICHERRY.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.

¶12

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.

¶13

4. THE HEAD MASTER, PGM PANCHAYATH HIGH SCHOOL, CHERUVANCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 90 of 2008 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED SCALE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERIOD OF SERVICE FROM 12/01/1979 TO 31/03/1979.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2007.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01/02/2007.

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PENSION, GRATUITY AND COMMUTATION PAYMENT ORDERS SANCTIONED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 12/09/2007.

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REVISED PENSION, COMMUTATION AND GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER, DATED 28/11/2007.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

...............................................................

¶31

W.P (C) No. 90 of 2008

¶32

................................................................ Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶35

(a) Call for the records connected with the case;

¶36

(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P5 order and declare that Ext.P5 revised order is incorrect for not taking into account the interrupted service from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 for time scale and weightage for completed years of service;

¶37

¶38

(d) Pass such other orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶39

The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA for short) from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 which spell was approved.

¶40

¶41

WP(C) 90/2008

¶42

Thereafter, she was again promoted as UPSA from 8.6.1979 to 10.1.1983. She was also granted the benefit of pay revision reckoning the broken period of service from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 as per Ext.P1 order.

¶43

Petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2007. In Ext.P2 check report submitted by the first respondent, it was pointed out that the reckoning of the initial spell of service from 12.1.79 to 31.3.1979 for grade promotion was not in order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2 check report pointing out that all broken spells of duty ought to have been counted for increment and that there was no irregularity in the grant of time bound higher grade reckoning broken period of service as well. The third respondent had, in the meanwhile, calculated the petitioner’s gratuity and pension reckoning broken spells of service from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 as qualifying service. Pension, gratuity and commutation orders are produced and marked as Ext.P4. However, thereafter on the basis of Ext.P2 check report, a revision appears to have been carried out and the pension and gratuity was reduced excluding

¶44

¶45

WP(C) 90/2008

¶46

the period from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 from the qualifying service of the petitioner. This revision is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶47

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

¶48

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Rule 61 (4) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, all service, whether continuous or interrupted are to be taken into account for counting the service

¶49

as qualifying service for increments. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the non-reckoning of the period from 12.1.79 to 31.3.79 for increment was the illegality and that reckoning the period for 18 years higher grade was perfectly in order. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that Ext.P5 is unsustainable.

¶50

The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that only those periods of service which are reckoned for the grant of increment can be reckoned for the grant of higher grade. In the above

¶51

¶52

WP(C) 90/2008

¶53

circumstances, it is submitted that since the period from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 had not been reckoned for the grant of increment to the petitioner can have no claim for reckoning the same towards for qualifying service for grade promotion. It is submitted that this is the basis on which Ext.P5 revised payment orders in respect of pension and gratuity are issued.

¶54

Rule 61 (4) of Chapter XIV A reads as follows:

¶55

“(4) All duty in a post on a time scale whether continuous or interrupted shall count for increment in that time scale”.

¶56

It is not in dispute that the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 12.1.1979 to 31.3.1979 was duly approved by the department. In the above circumstances, the said period was liable to be counted for increment in terms of Rule 61 (4). As such, the counting of the said period as qualifying service for grade promotion cannot be said to be irregular. The revision of the pensionary benefits already sanctioned to the petitioner by Ext.P4 on the reason that the said period had not been reckoned for normal increment is therefore unsustainable. In the above

¶57

¶58

WP(C) 90/2008

¶59

circumstances, Ext.P5 is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be paid the retiral benefits as provided in Ext.P4 with consequential benefits. Arrears of pension shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶60

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶61

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶62

sks

K.P. Rema v. the Dist.Education Officer, Tellicherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Rema v. the Dist.Education Officer, Tellicherry

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

Unnikrishnan P. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

K.K.Santhosh Kumar Vs the President, Pattazhi Vadakkekara

Priya Raveendran Vs the Dist.Medical Officer, Kollam

Premchand R.Nair Vs Biju Prabhakar

Micro Medited Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam

M.A. Nissar Vs State of Kerala