Allowed

B.Rema v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2018OP(KAT)/114/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Court distinguished Francis case facts, holding that pre-regularisation service cannot be reckoned for pension where regularisation was a one-time discretionary humanitarian measure, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the KAT order dismissing the Original Application is allowed. The Tribunal order is allowed.

B.Rema Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 114 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OAEKM 1173/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 07-02-2018

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS

¶9

1 B.REMA

¶10

AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. K.V SUDHAKARAN, INTEGRATED CHILD

¶11

DEVELOPMENT SCHEME(ICDS) SUPERVISOR(RETD), RESIDING AT

¶12

KANDANATTUVELI, CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 524.

¶13

2 MERCY X

¶14

AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. JOHN JOSY, ICDS SUPERVISOR(RETD),

¶15

RESIDING AT KANDANATTUVELI, CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA 688 524.

¶16

3 SOBHANA K.B

¶17

AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. VELUKUTTY, ICDS SUPERVISOR(RETD), RESIDING AT SANTHINILAYAM, PUDUPARIYARAM P.O,

¶18

PALAKKAD 678 731.

¶19

4 M. MUSTHARJAN

¶20

AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. JALAJUDEEN, ICDS SUPERVISOR(RETD),

¶21

RESIDING AT MUHABATH MANZIL, KODANEKKAL HOUSE,

¶22

PATTAMCHERRY P.O, PALAKKAD 678 532.

¶23

5 ROSY K.L

¶24

AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH M.B, ICDS SUPERVISOR,VYPIN ICDS PROJECT, NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT

¶25

MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 505.

¶26

6 RATHIDEVI A

¶27

AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. DAMODHARAN, ICDS SUPERVISOR (RETD),

¶28

RESIDING AT MELEMADATHIL, ANDOOR VADUVANCHAL P.O,

¶29

MEPPADI, WAYANAD 673 593.

¶30

7 ROJA P

¶31

AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. PREMARAJ, ICDS SUPERVISOR (RETD),

¶32

RESIDING AT SREEDEVAKI MANDIRAM, MALADATHPARAMBA,

¶33

KOTTOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 016.

¶34

BY ADVS.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER

¶35

OP(KAT).No. 114 of 2018

¶36

-2-

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS - PETITIONERS 6,7,8 IN O.A:

¶38

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶39

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT, SOCIAL JUSTICE

¶40

DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,

¶41

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶42

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

¶43

DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033.

¶44

3. MARY P.I

¶45

ICDS SUPERVISOR, THURUTHEPARAMBIL, THONICHAL,

¶46

NALLOORNAD P.O WAYANAD - 670 645

¶47

4. SARASWATHI M

¶48

MUTHEDATH ILLAM, MADKUNNU P.O, VALVAYIL, KALPATTA NORTH,

¶49

WAYANAD - 673 122.

¶50

5. GEETHA N.P

¶51

RAGA RASHMI, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O, WAYANAD - 673 592.

¶52

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A J VARGHESE

¶53

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

kkj

¶55

OP(KAT).No. 114 of 2018 (Z)

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.A (EKM} NO.1173/2016 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. EXHIBIT P1(B) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.A. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2018 IN O.A [EKM] NO.1173/2016 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶64

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

¶65

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of March 2018

¶66

J U D G M E N T

¶67

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶68

The petitioners are before us challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) in O.A.(Ekm) No.1173 of 2016. As per the impugned order, the Original Application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed summarily.

¶69

The petitioners are persons who had been engaged as ICDS Supervisors. The persons who were so engaged were Anganwadi workers with ten years of service. It is not in dispute that, they were engaged on contract basis. But, they continued to work for a long period of time with a break of one day or a few days in between. Since such workers claimed regularisation, the matter was directed by this Court to be considered by the Government, in Writ Petitions that were filed seeking regularisation.

¶70

-:2:-

¶71

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

¶72

Accordingly, the Government considered the claim of the petitioners and by an order dated 16.12.2009 evidenced herein by annexure A3 they were regularised in service. The present claim of the petitioners is that, the period of service that they had put in prior to their regularisation should be taken into account for the computation of their pensionary benefits. It is the said claim that has been rejected by the KAT.

¶73

According to Advocate Jeena Joseph who appears for the petitioners, the petitioners were persons who had been working continuously, though, with an artificial break in their service. Since they had rendered continuous service for a long period of time, it is only appropriate that the said service is also reckoned for the purpose of computing their pensionary benefits. According to the learned counsel, the KAT has omitted to consider the above aspect of the matter. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court in Francis v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

¶74

-:3:-

¶75

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

¶76

[2015(1) KLT 1051] to contend that, broken periods of service prior to regularisation was liable to be taken into account for the purpose of pension.

¶77

This Original Petition comes up before us for admission. We have considered the contentions advanced before us, anxiously. It is not in dispute that, the petitioners were all working on contract basis, prior to their regularisation. Their regularisation was ordered by the Government as per annexure A3 order dated 16.12.2009. A perusal of the order shows that, the Government had taken the decision to regularise the services of the petitioners and others, treating the same as a special case, overlooking the advice of the Public Service Commission. Accordingly, they have been regularised in service with effect from the dates noted against their names. Accordingly, 47 persons have been regularised as per annexure A3. Since the petitioners were regularised as per annexure A3, they cannot aspire for anything more than what has been granted as per the said proceedings by the Government as part of the conditions of

¶78

-:4:-

¶79

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

¶80

their regularisation.

¶81

The petitioners had thereafter raised a claim that they were entitled to reckon the period prior to their regularisation also, for the purpose of computing their pensionary benefits. The said representation was considered by the Government and rejected as per annexure A6 order dated 28.03.2016. The Government have noted in the said order that, the regularisation that was granted to the petitioners in the order was a one time measure taking into account their persistent request, on humanitarian considerations. It is also stated in Annexure A6 that, the issue has been elaborately considered by the Government and found to be untenable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in annexure A6 warranting an interference therewith in appeal. The KAT was in the circumstances justified in dismissing the Original Application.

¶82

With reference to the reliance placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in Francis v.

¶83

-:5:-

¶84

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

¶85

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [Supra], we find that the facts in the said case were entirely different. In the said case, the empanelled drivers of the KSRTC had sought for reckoning the period prior to their regularisation for the purpose of computing their pensionary benefits. In the said case, there was also a settlement, the clause of which had come up for interpretation. In the present case, the regularisation granted to the petitioners was only a one time measure, in the exercise of the discretion of the Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot aspire for anything more than what has been granted by annexure A3 order of regularisation. In the above view of the matter, this Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶86

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶87

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

¶88

kkj

¶89

-:6:-

¶90

O.P. (KAT) No.114 of 2018

B.Rema v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rema 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

N.L.Sajith Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Mini.S Vs the Secretary

Greeshma N.P Vs Indu P

State of Kerala Vs Ravindran N.

The Principal Vs the Chairman

The State of Kerala Vs Smitha R.S.