Petitioner, retired Deputy Commissioner, challenged an order denying recognition of his bar experience as qualifying service for pension. The court held the Tribunal correctly denied the benefit as his initial post did not require law qualification, applying Supreme Court precedent.
Original Petition dismissed; Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2016 upheld.
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 MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 294 of 2017 (Z)
PETITIONER(S):
P.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O P.K. RAVUNNY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [INTELLIGENCE] (RETIRED), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE 673006 RESIDING AT PLAVINKUTTIATHIL HOUSE, PADUKAD, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 101.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 294 of 2017 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE O.A. (EKM) NO. 1919/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A9 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2016 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 1919/2016 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [ERNAKULAM BENCH] EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE QUESTIONARE DATED 06.01.2017 AND REPLY DATED 06.02.2017 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ
O.P.(KAT) No. 294 of 2017
Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
Shircy, J.
Challenge is against Ext. P2 order of KAT in O.A.(EKM) No. 1919 of 2016 declining the relief sought for by the petitioner. Petitioner has retired from service as Deputy Commissioner [Intelligence] from the Commercial Taxes Department on 31.05.2015. He was a practising lawyer at the time of joining service. On his retirement, his Bar practice/experience for two years and 8 months was not accounted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Though, he approached the Government his request was rejected, as per Annexure A7. Hence, he filed the Original Petition with the following reliefs :
(i) Set aside Exhibit P2 order of the Tribunal and allow Original Application (EKM) No. 1919/2016.
(ii) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award costs to the petitioner.
O.P.(KAT) No. 294 of 2017
: 2 :
“25. (a) xxxxxxx
Provided that the benefit under this sub-rule shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practising at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar.”
O.P.(KAT) No. 294 of 2017
: 3 :
Bar. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the Commercial Taxes Department, the employees who joined service having Bar practice are given the benefit of their experience and hence such benefit has to be extended to the petitioner also. But it is to be noted that there is much difference in the case of employees who are recruited to a post where law degree and experience as lawyer is an essential qualification. Here, the petitioner was initially recruited as Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department, which is a post where experience as a practising lawyer or law degree is not at all essential and as such the benefit provided under the proviso to Rule 25(a) cannot be extended to this petitioner. It is also to be noted that merely for the reason that such benefit has been extended to similarly situated persons, the benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner. The law laid down by the Apex Court in
Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and
another [AIR 1995 SC 705] is to the effect that a mistake is always a mistake, which cannot be perpetuated by giving a positive direction, and an illegal order cannot be repeated again and again by exercising the discretionary power. So in short his Bar experience can not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.
O.P.(KAT) No. 294 of 2017
: 4 :
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
sd/-
SHIRCY V., JUDGE
kmd
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bar experience of a retired Deputy Commissioner who joined as Lower Division Clerk can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension under proviso to Rule 25(a) of Part III Kerala Service Rule
Whether the Tribunal's order declining the petitioner's claim for pension benefits based on bar experience was legally tenable.
Whether similar benefit granted to posts requiring law qualification extends to posts where such qualification is not essential.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and anotherApplied¶41
AIR 1995 SC 705 · Who else cites this
P.R. Vijayakumar
State of Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
