Dismissed

V.K.Haridasan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Feb 2018WP(C)/4012/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A pensioner assistant engineer sought permission for voluntary retirement from KSEB, claiming his prior Southern Railway service added to his tenure. The court held that Rule 56 requires 20 years of qualifying service specifically within KSEB and prior railway service counts only for pension, not voluntary retirement.

What did the court decide?

Permission for voluntary retirement sought by aggregating prior railway service with KSEB tenure was denied.

V.K.Haridasan Vs Kerala State Electricity… — 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 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4012 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

V.K.HARIDASAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION) VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM 683 542.

¶13

BY ADVs. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 4012 of 2018 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER OF SOUTHERN RAILWAYS DATED 5.4.2016.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB1(A)/AE(E)/VR/1/2017 DATED 9.3.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2017 IN WPC.13862/2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

26/02/2018

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018

¶29

------------------------------------- Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner, who is working in the Kerala

¶32

State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter referred as

¶33

'KSEB') has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2017, by which his application for voluntary retirement from 05.01.2017, was rejected, on the ground that he did not complete 20 years of service in KSEB Ltd.

¶34

Petitioner joined KSEB on 14.06.1999. He

¶35

requested for permission for voluntary retirement from 05.01.2017 when he had only less than 18 years service in the KSEBL. In his application for voluntary retirement, he claimed that his service in the Southern Railway from 13.07.1989 to 10.06.1999 prior

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018

¶38

to his entry in KSEB has to be reckoned for the purpose of availing voluntary retirement. In Ext.P2 order, the 3^rd respondent stated that the service in Railways cannot be reckoned for the purpose of voluntary retirement and that it can be reckoned only for calculating pensionary benefits.

¶39

Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment in which this Court directed the respondent Board to reckon the service rendered by the petitioner therein in the Railways along with his service in the Board

¶40

for fixing his pensionary benefits, based on separate Board Orders on that behalf.

¶41

According to the petitioner, the qualifying service of 20 years prescribed in Rule 56(iii) of Part III KSR, has to be understood as any service mentioned Part III which can be counted for pension and in that event his qualifying service would be more than 20 years and hence permission should have been granted to him for voluntary retirement based on

¶42

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018

¶43

¶44

his application submitted on 05.01.2017.

¶45

Petitioner who was working in the KSEBL when required voluntary retirement, he should have the qualifying service prescribed in sub rule (iii) of Rule 56 i.e., 20 years of service in the KSEBL, the establishment from which retirement is sought. In case he has not completed 20 years of service, he will not be entitled to be relieved on retirement. The 'qualifying service' is dealt within Chapter II of Part III Kerala Service Rules. As per Rule 9 of Part III the service of every employee begins, when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed. Going by Rule 9, petitioner's service began only when he took charge in Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Rule 10 provides that the service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless he is appointed, his duties regulated, and paid by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government. Rule 11 provides for reckoning of

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018

¶48

certain specified kind of service, for pension, if declared by Government. The said service mentioned in Rule 11 if so declared by government, count only for pension and not for voluntary retirement. That cannot be taken as the qualifying service required for the purpose of voluntary retirement, on the other hand it can only be reckoned for pension. Chapter IV, Part III of KSR deals with different kinds of pension. Rule 55 in Section IV of Part III, provides that superannuation pension is granted to an officer who retires at a particular age. Relevant provisions in Rule 56 in Section V which deals with voluntary retirement read as follows:

¶49

“56. A retiring pension is granted to an employee who retires voluntarily after 20 years of qualifying service subject to the following conditions:-

¶50

(i) He shall give notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire:

¶51

[Provided that the employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018

¶54

therefor. On receipt of such request the appointing authority may consider it for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months]

¶55

(ii) If the retirement of the employee takes place while on leave not due, the retirement shall be effective from the date of commencement of leave and the leave salary paid, if any, shall be recovered either from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to him or otherwise;

¶56

(iii) The person retiring voluntarily should make sure before applying for retirement that he has put in 20 years' of qualifying service. The rounding of qualifying service prescribed in rule 57 is not permissible at this stage;

¶57

(iv) Voluntary retirement of an employee shall become effective on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make appointment to the post:

¶58

Provided that where the authority competent to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to retire specified in

¶59

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018 6

¶60

the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice.”

¶61

Thus, retiring pension is granted to an

¶62

employee who retires voluntarily after 20 years of qualifying service subject to the conditions mentioned therein. None of these provisions in Rule 56 or even in part III provides that service rendered

¶63

in another establishment or the prior service rendered by an employee under the central government can be reckoned towards the minimum qualifying service for the purpose of voluntary retirement. In the absence of such a provision in the rules, there is no basis for the claim of the petitioner.

¶64

Petitioner can retire from the Kerala State Electricity Board voluntarily only if he has

¶65

completed 20 years of service in the KSEB. Ext.P3 judgment relied on by the petitioner is not one which relates to the minimum service required for voluntary retirement and hence it can not be of any help to the

¶66

W.P.(C).No.4012 of 2018 7

¶67

petitioner. Petitioner cannot therefore insist that his service in Railways has to be reckoned towards the minimum service of 20 years required for voluntary retirement. The orders if any which provides for counting for pension, cannot be invoked for the purpose of computing the requisite qualifying service of 20 years mentioned in Rule 56 of Part III KSR, as stated by the 3^rd respondent.

¶68

In the above circumstances, I do not find

¶69

any reason for interfere with Ext.P3 order.

¶70

Accordingly this writ petition fails and dismissed.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶73

V.K.Haridasan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Haridasan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Balu Vs Dr.M.a.Lal

Naicymol C.S. Vs Sri. Suku Paul

Kadeeja Adampulan Vs Surendran Kizhakkevalappil

Joy Thomas Vs Koshy Thomas, the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

Antony K.R. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Sudha J. Vs State of Kerala