Partly allowed

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Ebanezer Samji

Kerala HC16 Feb 2017RP/902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition addresses two matters: entitlement to reckon previous P&T service for pension computation pending BSNL payment, and interest on terminal benefits. The court left the pension computation issue open contingent on BSNL payment. It allowed the Board's petition to delete the interest direction as amounts were disbursed promptly.

What did the court decide?

RP No.914/13 disposed reserving right to claim re-computation of service upon BSNL payment. RP No.902/13 allowed deleting the direction to pay 9% interest.

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Ebanezer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 902 of 2013 (P) IN WP(C).28950/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28950/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27-08-2013

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

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

¶9

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶12

EBANEZER SAMJI

¶13

S/O.ELIAZAR, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLIVE, PALACE LANE, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 18, RETIRED AS CHIEF ENGINEER AND SAFETY COMMISSIONER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1602-2017 ALONG WITH RP NO.914/13, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶17

=============== R.P.No.902 of 2013 &

¶18

R.P.No.914 of 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 28950 of 2012

¶19

==================

¶20

Dated this, the 16^th day of February, 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

These two review petitions have been filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board. The writ petitioner filed RP No.914/2013 inter alia contending that petitioner was entitled to get a higher pension than what is stated under Ext.P1 on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3. It is stated that by Ext.P2, the Government had granted sanction to reckon the service of the petitioner in the P&T Department by condoning the break of 7 days between two services. By Ext.P3 dated 27/7/2012, direction had been issued by the Board to secure payment of the admissible amount of pro-rata pension in respect of the petitioner from BSNL authorities and on receipt of such payment, the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Post and Telegraph Department also be reckoned for computing the qualifying period of service for pensionary benefits.

¶23

R.P.No.902 of 2013 & R.P.No.914 of 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 28950 of 2012

¶24

-:2:-

¶25

The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though such a direction had been issued, no action had been taken in that matter and Ext.P1 has been issued without taking into account the service of the writ petitioner in the Post and Telegraph Department.

¶26

By the judgment under review, this Court has already directed the Board to pay the terminal benefits of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in terms of Ext.P1.

¶27

The contention urged is that in Ext.P1, service rendered at Post and Telegraph Department had not been taken into consideration for reckoning the qualifying service.

¶28

In the review petition filed by the Board (RP No.902/13), they challenged the direction in the judgment by which Board was directed to pay 9% interest on the amount payable in terms of Ext.P1 from the date of Ext.P1 till payment. Learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that the DCRG and commutation as per Ext.P1 for `16,53,407/- was disbursed on 1/13 as per Cheque No.214380 and the pension arrears from

¶29

R.P.No.902 of 2013 & R.P.No.914 of 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 28950 of 2012

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

June 2011 to November,2012 was paid in December, 2012. It is therefore contended that there is no delay in payment and, therefore, the direction to pay interest should be reviewed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, two issues arise for consideration in the review petitions. One is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to reckon the service in P&T for the purpose of computing the qualifying service. Apparently, in Ext.P1, the service rendered in P&T had not been considered. The Board has a contention that the previous service in another Department is computed based on Board order dated 1/9/2005. Even otherwise, in Ext.P3, direction had been issued to the Accounts Officer to take into consideration the said service, provided the pro-rata pension is paid by the P&T Department (presently BSNL). There cannot be any dispute that even in Ext.P3, the service in P&T is to be computed as a qualifying service only on receipt of the pro-rata pension. The Board could make appropriate changes in the pension only if the same is received. Without receiving the same, it will not be possible for the Board to treat the said period for qualifying

¶33

R.P.No.902 of 2013 & R.P.No.914 of 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 28950 of 2012

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

service. Therefore, according to me, the matter requires to be left open to enable the writ petitioner to challenge it in appropriate proceedings.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, after the judgment, certain amounts were deducted from the gratuity payable. If at all any illegal deduction is made, nothing prevents the petitioner from challenging the same in appropriate proceedings and this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner.

¶37

In regard to the review petition filed by the Board, it is apparent that the amounts had been disbursed within a short time from the date of judgment. The judgment came to be passed since no counter affidavit was filed and it was to avoid any further delay in disbursement of the amount. In so far as the amount had been paid within a reasonable time, it is appropriate that the direction to pay interest can be reviewed.

¶38

Accordingly, the review petitions are disposed of as under:-

¶39

(i) RP No.914/13 is disposed of reserving right of the petitioner to claim re-computation of the qualifying service on the

¶40

R.P.No.902 of 2013 & R.P.No.914 of 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 28950 of 2012

¶41

basis of Ext.P3, in the event, the BSNL pays the pro-rata pension to the Kerala State Electricity Board as contemplated therein.

¶42

(ii) RP No.902/13 is allowed deleting that part of the judgment which directs payment of interest @9% on the amount covered by Ext.P1.

¶43

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶44

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

P.S to Judge

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Ebanezer Samji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Ebanezer Samji

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

Hadiya Firdouse Vs Abdul Vahab @ Vahab

Kunnummal Peruntha Basheer Vs Chakunnum Purath Annamma

M/S Vettathil Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Sreeraj.S Vs Thulasidharan Pillai

The Commercial Tax Officer-I Vs N.Prakasan

V.v.Abraham Vs Chengannur Municipality