Partly allowed

G.Muraleedharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Other

Kerala HC8 Feb 2017WP(C)/6130/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired KSEB employee sought pension reckoning for pre-Board service. Court found the initial rejection ignored valid grounds and the appeal order was non-speaking. The Board was directed to consider the appeal afresh within three months after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the appeal order; directed the Board to consider the appeal and further representation within three months after hearing the petitioner.

G.Muraleedharan Vs Kerala State Electricity… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6130 of 2008 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.MURALEEDHARAN, (RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHERTHALA), "REVATHY" - MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.N.SANTHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 004.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001.

¶12

3. TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 501. R1 BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 6130 of 2008 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BO NO.424/92(ESTT.IV/1960/91) DTD.12.3.1992.

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FB) NO.2574/2005 ESTT.IV/RECKONING SERVICE/2005) DTD.1.9.2005.

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB1 20/90 DTD.22.11.1990 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POOVANTHURUTHU.

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB1(a)/94(24) DTD.3.5.1994 ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POOVANTHURUTHU, THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) GENERAL.

¶22

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB1/2/06-07/1236 DTD.12.3.2007 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM.

¶23

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DTD.16.8.2007.

¶24

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.IV/6282/2007 DTD.15.11.2007 OF THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.

¶25

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.413/2014/FIN. DTD.24.9.2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.29.10.2007

¶28

EXT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE B.O. DTD.12.9.2007.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.6130 of 2008

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner was working as Line Helper and Assistant Line Man in the Public Works Department (PWD) from 29.06.1976 to 31.12.1984. From 01.01.1985 to 30.03.1990, he had service in the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.( TCC Ltd.). Thereafter he joined Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) on 31.03.1990 as Assistant Engineer and retired from service on 30.11.2007.

¶37

The petitioner submits that Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the KSEB provide that past service rendered by Board employees in the Kerala State Government Department is to be reckoned for the purpose of pension in the Board. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation seeking counting of his entire past service in the Public Works Department as well as in the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (TCC Ltd.) as qualifying service for pension. However, by Ext.P5 order dated 12.03.2007,

¶38

W.P.(C) No.6130/2008

¶39

¶40

the petitioner's application was rejected since there is break in service in the PWD and that in the Board as the service in TCC Ltd., which is a non pensionable organisation, is not qualifying service. The petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Board against the rejection of his claim. By Ext.P7 order, the appeal has been rejected without referring to any of the grounds raised by the petitioner.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P8 Government Order dated 24.09.2014 stating that prior public service shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pension after condoning the sandwiched non-qualifying service as break between the two services. It is contended that the said order would be applicable to KSEB as well.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB submitted that the petitioner had submitted his resignation from PWD on 31.12.1984 to join TCC Limited. It is stated that TCC service being non pensionable, resignation from PWD would entail forfeiture of past service. Going by the provisions of Rule 29

¶44

W.P.(C) No.6130/2008 3

¶45

Part III KSR, it is stated that it was only in cases where resignation is submitted for the purpose of joining an organisation, the service in which counts for pension, that resignation will not entail forfeiture of past service. It is stated that the orders governing pay revision of officers in the Board provide that only former Government service followed by Board service without break will be reckoned as qualifying service for weightage.

¶46

I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioner raises a claim for consideration of his past service rendered in the PWD as qualifying service for pension on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The reason stated in Ext.P5

¶47

for rejection of his claim is that he had joined the TCC Ltd. after resignation from the PWD and that service does not qualify for pension.

¶48

The petitioner has produced Ext.P8 Government Order to contend that such break could be condoned. In view of the fact that the Board had issued Exts.P1 and P2 orders in exercise of powers under Rule 11 Part III KSR, it was only appropriate that the Board considers the claim raised by the petitioner for condoning the break in service and reckoning the period of

¶49

W.P.(C) No.6130/2008

¶50

¶51

service put in by him in the PWD as qualifying service. This issue has to be considered by the Board with specific reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P7 order issued by the Secretary on Ext.P6 appeal is a cryptic and non speaking order and does not refer to the contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶52

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P7 is set aside. It is directed that the 1^st respondent-Board shall consider Ext.P6 appeal and any further representation which may be preferred by the petitioner with specific reference to the contentions raised by him and pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before orders are passed as directed above, petitioner shall also be heard.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶55

smp

G.Muraleedharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Muraleedharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopi Vs Velmurugan

Prof.Dr.S.Balaraman Vs State of Kerala

The Corporate Manager Vs the State of Kerala

P.G.Vijayan Vs K.S.B.C. Ltd.

Velayudhan Kutty M. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Ally Tresa George Vs the State of Kerala