Remanded

Mohana Kumar.K.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2018WP(C)/3853/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired UD Clerk excluded from regularization benefits granted to other colleagues from the same Malabar Market Committee, sought writ relief. Court found petitioner was the sole exclusion and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider his case for regularization and pension benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to reconsider petitioner's regularization and pension benefits within three months with utmost compassion.

Mohana Kumar.K.P. 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 20TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3853 of 2013

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOHANA KUMAR.K.P., S/O.K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, "THRIPATHAM", NEAR VGHS, CHITTOOR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 101.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SMT.SREELA MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶13

4. THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF MALABAR MARKETING COMMITTEE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 3853 of 2013

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19/02/1998 IN O.P.NO.13907 OF 1994.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.107/02/AD DATED 12/06/2002.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.170/2004/AD DATED 09/08/2004.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/09/2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 21/08/2004 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF LIST OF RECORDS HANDED OVER BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 05/01/2005 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.1/05 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.201/07/AD DATED 17/11/2007.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 09/01/2008 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/01/2008 OF THE PETITIONER .
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/03/2008 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1307/NCA 2/08/AGR DATED 03/05/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.20500/NCA2/08/AGR DATED 02/08/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/11/2008 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.35215/NCA2/08/AGR DATED 24/09/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.171/11 AGR. DATED 19/07/2011.
EXHIBIT P18:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/09/2011 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P19:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/12/2011 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P20:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.27181/NCA2/11 AGR. DATED 24/02/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

WP(C).No. 3853 of 2013

¶22

EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/03/2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.28387/AW B2/12/FIN DATED 17/08/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXHIBIT R3(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(M.S)NO. 134/2013/AGRI DATED 20.04.2013.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.3853 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner, who retired from service, while working as a UD Clerk on deployment in the office of the Tahsildar, Kozhikkode, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Exts.P9 and P17 to the extent he is excluded from the purview of those orders while all others who were redeployed along with him are benefited.

¶34

The petitioner commenced his service in the erstwhile Malabar Market Committee (“the MMC” for short). On promotion in 1983, he had been working as Supervisor. Whileso, the MMC became defunct. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P3 order redeploying the employees of the MMC in Government Departments as per order dated 9.8.2004. There were 58 employees in the MMC. Out of them 40 were redeployed in various offices under the Government in the post of LD Clerk/UD Clerk. Employees who were working as Clerk and Supervisor were redeployed in the vacancies of LD Clerk/UD Clerk. 12 persons, who were working in the categories of Road Mesthiri, Market Mesthiri and Peon, were reappointed in the post of Peon. Four persons, who were working as Watchman and Sweeper, were redeployed in the respective posts. Redeployment was on five conditions stipulated

¶35

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶36

:2:

¶37

therein. It was specifically stated that they will be continued to be governed by the service conditions of the MMC and they would not be eligible for any benefits available for Government servants. At the same time, it was directed that they will retire from service on completion of 55 years of age. Government was free to relieve them/repatriate them to MMC. It was also stated that redeployment would be purely provisional and it would not entitle them to claim for enhancement of pay or regularization in future. The pay and allowances were fixed as the last pay they were drawing from the MMC.

¶38

As per Ext.P4 order dated 20.9.2004, petitioner was deployed in the office of the Executive Engineer, National High Way as UD Clerk. Thereafter, as per Ext.P7 order dated 5.1.2005 he was redeployed in the office of the Tahsildar in the Revenue Department. While so he retired from service on 31.5.2006. Subsequent to his retirement, the Government issued Ext.P9 order on 17.11.2007 regularizing the employees redeployed from MMC. The Government considered the question of regularization of those who were deployed from the MMC. The District Collector reported that there were only 53 persons who were then working in various Government offices. Government therefore issued orders on 17.11.2007 that those who were deployed

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶40

:3:

¶41

should stand regularized on condition that their service in the office under the Government would not be reckoned for the purpose of pension and they would be entitled to pension in accordance with the conditions which prevailed in the MMC. It was also stated that they would be entitled to pension which is more beneficial that is service pension/pension from the MMC. It was further ordered that claims for pension or for family pension or pension revision in MMC would not be considered.

¶42

The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P10 representation requesting for extending the benefit of Ext.P9 to him pointing out that he was redeployed in a Government Office as per Ext.P3 order and worked on redeployment for the period from 5.1.2005 to 31.5.2006 in the office of the Revenue Recovery Tahsildar. Even though he continued to submit several representations, Government as per Ext.P13 order dated 3.5.2008 rejected his request saying that the orders of regularization does not have any retrospective effect. As per Ext.P14 order dated 2.8.2008 also Government rejected the request of the petitioner. Petitioner again approached the Government with Ext.P15 representation pointing out that he had rendered 34 years of service with the MMC and was granted only Rs.32,340 towards pensionary benefits in total and requesting to extend the benefit of

¶43

:4:

¶44

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶45

pension in Ext.P9 to him. By Ext.P16 letter Government rejected that request saying that those who retired from the service of MMC between 31.5.1998 and 17.11.2007 and were not regularized as Government servant would be entitled only for the pension which is available for the employees of the MMC.

¶46

While so, Government issued Ext.P17 order on 19.7.2011 revising Ext.P9 order by which it was directed that those who were regularized in Government service on redeployment from MMC as per Ext.P9 order, would be entitled to get their pensionary benefits reckoning their service in the MMC along with the Government service.

¶47

The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P18 representation pointing out his grievances on account of the denial of the benefit of the orders Exts.P9 and P17 that he was the only person who was denied the benefit from among those who were redeployed based on Ext.P3 order. Even though a report was called for from the District Collector and was obtained as per Ext.P19, Government again rejected his representation saying that those who retired from service between 31.5.1998 and 17.11.2007 are not entitled to pensionary benefits. Though the petitioner continued to submit further representation the Finance Department also rejected his representation as per Ext.P22.

¶48

Respondents filed counter affidavit reiterating their stand in

¶49

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶50

:5:

¶51

the orders rejecting the request. It was stated that the petitioner was redeployed in Government service on conditions which the petitioner had accepted. In Ext.P3 order Government had ordered that redeployment would not enable the petitioner to reckon his service in the MMC for any of the benefits.

¶52

The MMC had become defunct pursuant to the judgment dated 19.2.1994 in O.P.No.13007 of 1994 abolishing Malabar Commercial Corpus Market Act. None of the employees of the MMC were granted the benefit of any pay revision. The redeployment of the petitioner along with other employees was only conditional and the Government have every right to give benefit to the petitioner as per the then existing rules and circulars. The orders Ext.P9 or Ext.P17 does not have any retrospective effect. Ext.P9 order was issued only in 2007; whereas the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2006.

¶53

Heard Smt. Jayasree, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶54

The contention of the petitioner is that he is the only person who is excluded from the purview of Ext.P9 order as he happened to retired from service on 31.5.2006. Ext.P9 order was issued on 17.11.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that all those who were redeployed on the basis of Ext.P3 order along with the

¶55

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶56

:6:

¶57

petitioner, got the benefit of Ext.P9 order and they are able to get the benefit of Ext.P17 order also. It is seen that Ext.P3 order was passed redeploying 58 persons out of which 53 persons ie. all those who accepted deployment- were regularised as per Ext.P9 order. The petitioner points out that he is the only one left out from those 53 who were granted the benefit of Ext.P9 on account of which he is getting pension at the lowest rate, despite the fact that the petitioner was the senior most amongst those who were deployed, and retired after rendering 35 years of service, i.e from 02.11.1971 to 31.5.2006. The petitioner is drawing a meager pension of Rs.2,750/-, while those who joined the MMC far later to the petitioner are able to enjoy pensionary benefits at far higher rates than the petitioner. The contention of the respondents is that once petitioner joined duty under the Government knowing fully well the conditions, he can turn round and seek pension or any other benefits on par with others who were in service when Exts.P9 and P17 orders were issued.

¶58

On an anxious consideration of the contentions, it is seen that the petitioner is the only person left out of the benefit of Ext.P9 and Ext.P17 orders, even though the redeployment was on conditions which the petitioner accepted. I am of the view that it is a matter which requires reconsideration by the Government, sympathetically.

¶59

W.P.(C) No.3853/13

¶60

:7:

¶61

The Government shall, therefore, consider the case of petitioner afresh, taking into account of the fact that the petitioner who rendered a total service of 35 years is compelled to draw a nominal pension only because he happened to retire from service on 31.5.2006 on redeployment as per Ext.P6 order. The financial burden would be limited, as petitioner is the sole person who is left out from the benefit of Ext.P9 order.

¶62

In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the question of regularisation of the petitioner with utmost compassion along with other 52 persons who were regularised as per Ext.P9 order and thereafter for the benefit of Ext.P17 order. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months.

¶63

Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶64

rkc

Mohana Kumar.K.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohana Kumar.K.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Nazar Kunju Vs Ashok Kumar Singh

Prem P Mahesh Vs S.Raimon

P Aji Nair Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

K.S.Cherian Vs the Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Lt

Prasanna Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Smt.Sobhana Kumari a Vs State of Kerala