Disposed

K.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2017WP(C)/11509/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking ex gratia pension for two road roller and car drivers. While leaving retrospective regularisation open due to a pending Supreme Court appeal, the Court directed respondents to consider pension claims and potentially count ad hoc service towards qualifying years.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider ex gratia pension claims and consider adding ad hoc service to qualifying service. Retrospective regularisation left open.

K.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11509 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ROAD ROLLER DRIVER, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

2. K.M.MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, CAR DRIVER, -DO- -DO-.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA-689 121.

¶13

3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA-689121.

¶14

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.N.MANOJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 11509 of 2012 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.169/2007/LSGD DATED 29.6.2007. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.70/2006/LSGD DATED 1.3.2006. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A.1909/07 DATED 18.7.2011 OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.11446/IB1/2011/LSGD DATED 16.11.2011 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1-3806/1985/DRDA DATED 15.5.2004 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P8. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1-2964/04 DATED 25.2.2005 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P9. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D-1004/97 DATED 19.1.2006 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. EXHIBIT-P10. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1621/2009/LSGD DATED 22.6.2009. EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.68/2011 LSGD DATED 28.2.2011.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.11509 of 2012

¶34

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

This writ petition is preferred seeking the benefit of retrospective regularisation of the petitioners in the service of the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner was appointed as Road Roller Driver on 13.02.1986 and had continued in service. By order dated 29.06.2007, his services were regularised and he retired from service on 31.05.2016. The 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Car Driver on 13.03.1997 and his services were regularised by order dated 01.03.2006 and he retired from service on 31.03.2016.

¶38

It is submitted that though connected cases were allowed by this Court, the said judgment was reversed in appeal and the matter is pending in Special Leave Petition. The question raised therein is with regard to the retrospective operation of the order of regularisation.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.11509/2012

¶40

¶41

The only relief pressed before me in this writ petition is for consideration of the claim raised by the petitioners for grant of pension. It is submitted that the petitioners had continued in service for long years without interruption. They would, therefore, be entitled for grant of at least ex gratia pension. Since the orders of regularisation were issued much later, the petitioners, as of now do not have the qualifying service for grant of pension.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others vs.

¶43

M.Daisy (2012 (2) KHC 860) to contend that pension being an entitlement of an employee which arises on account of long years of service and being a social welfare measure, the Government, who is bound to act as model employer, should consider the claim raised by the petitioners at least for ex gratia pension. The Full Bench in the decision cited had directed the Government to pay ex gratia pension taking into account the 20 years of service put in by a daily rated employee whose services have not even been regularised.

¶44

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the claim raised by the petitioners for pension should also be

¶45

W.P.(C) No.11509/2012

¶46

¶47

sympathetically considered by the respondents especially in view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to above.

¶48

This writ petition is therefore disposed of as under: i) The issue of retrospective regularisation of the

¶49

petitioners is left open since it is submitted that a Special Leave Petition is pending in an identical matter before the Apex Court.

¶50

ii) The respondents are directed to take up the claim raised by the petitioners for grant of ex gratia pension taking into account the long years of service put in by them. The respondents shall also consider whether at least a portion of ad hoc service rendered by the 1^st petitioner from 13.02.1986 and the 2^nd petitioner from 13.03.1997 can be added to the qualifying service rendered by them after their retrospective regularisation from 29.06.2007 and 01.03.2006 respectively. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 1^st respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶53

smp

K.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajayakumar.v Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

K.v.Arun Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

C.K.John Valsalam Vs Fr.Jacob

Rajesh R.Kodiparambil and Ors. Vs the State of Kerala and Ors.

K.K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Rajan Vs the District Manager