Dismissed

Leela Viswambharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2018WP(C)/5947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Telephone Operator absorbed in KTDC, sought pension considering pre-absorption service. The Court rejected the claim as the Government had already considered similar situations and refused pension based on minimum service requirements and prior judicial directions, noting it could not direct pension reckoning the entire period post-rejection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking pension was dismissed.

Leela Viswambharan 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

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5947 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

LEELA VISWAMBARAN, VAPPALA HOUSE, NEENDOOR VADAKKEKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 522.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,

¶13

CORPORATE OFFICE, P.B.NO.5424, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶14

695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

3. DIRECTOR,

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶19

R3 BY SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 5947 of 2018 (P)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KTDC/PA(3)/3750/09 DATED 28.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.2.2016 OF THE KERALA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN H.R.M.P.NO.12829/2015. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KTDC/PA(3)/203/16 DATED 21.10.2016 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.3.2017 IN WPC NO.8540/2017. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT).NO.370/2017/TSM DATED 29.7.2017 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 06/04/2018

P.V.ASHA J.

-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.5947 of 2018

¶32

------------------------------------- Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2018

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioner, who worked as a Telephone Operator

¶35

in the Tourism Department for the period from 22.03.1965 onwards, was absorbed in Kerala Tourism Development Corporation ('KTDC' for short) on 07.03.1970. She retired from the Corporation on 31.05.1995. Her representation requesting for pension was rejected by KTDC, as per Ext.P4 order, stating that she had rendered only 5 years service in the Tourism Department and those who have not completed minimum service in the Tourism Department prior to their absorption in KTDC, are not allowed pension from the KTDC. It was also pointed out that consequent to the judgment in W.P.(C).No.19817 of 2005 filed by M/s Parameswaran Nair and others, who had also rendered

¶36

W.P.(C).No.5947 of 2018

¶37

¶38

service in Tourism Department before their absorption

¶39

in KTDC, Government had considered their claim and rejected their requests and they were also not granted pension. Petitioner thereafter, approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.8540 of 2017 and this Court, as per Ext.P5 judgment, directed the Government to consider her request for pension under Rule 11 of Part III KSR. Petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P6 representation. Government rejected it, as per Ext.P7 order, stating that the request of M/s Parameswaran Nair and others was also rejected as per G.O.(Rt).No.1318/2010/Tsm dated 23.02.2010, after it was considered in tune with the direction contained in the judgment dated 28.05.2009 in W.P.(C).No.19817 of 2005 and therefore, petitioner's request also cannot be considered.

¶40

Petitioner had approached this Court saying that she is entitled to pension as in the case of several others, who had also rendered service

¶41

W.P.(C).No.5947 of 2018

¶42

¶43

before absorption in KTDC. Even though, the representation itself was submitted by petitioner, after about 20 years of her retirement, petitioner was given an opportunity to approach the Government. Government has found that the case of similarly situated persons was considered by Government, as directed by this Court in the writ petition filed by them.

¶44

In the above circumstances, when the Government was not satisfied that an order under Rule 11 of Part III KSR was liable to be issued, this Court cannot direct the Government to invoke its power under Rule 11 and to grant pension in the case of the petitioner reckoning the entire period.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is

¶46

dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶48

Leela Viswambharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Viswambharan 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

Jose Chacko Vs Kseb and 3 Others

V.K.Krishnan Namboodiri Vs the Malabar Devaswom Board

Rajan.C.a Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Sumeeshkumar. S Vs Rahul R. (Irs)

Bindu.G Vs Mr.a Shajahan I.A.S

Leema Kuruvila Vs State of Kerala