Allowed

Lizy Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020WP(C)/123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondents to disburse arrears of pension due to a retired lecturer from 01.04.1997 and to examine complaints regarding pension computation based on the revised pay scale.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to sanction and disburse arrears of pension from 01.04.1997 within four months and to look into the complaint regarding pension computation in three months.

Lizy Paul Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LIZY PAUL, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O T.P. PAULOSE, RESIDING AT THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, S.H. CONVENT, KARUKUTTY P.O., KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of arrears of pension. She has also another complaint that the service rendered by her up to 31.03.1997 is not reckoned for fixing the pension.

¶19

2. Petitioner commenced her service in an aided

¶20

School on 22.07.1968. After rendering service in an aided school for the period from 22.07.1968 to 23.06.1971, she joined as Lecturer in an aided Training College at Ernakulam and continued there till 17.10.1994. She joined the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit as a Reader on 18.10.1994. But when the entire selection and appointments were set aside by this Court, her services were terminated on 29.03.1997. She thereafter continued there on contract basis for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.12.2003. But it is stated that she had attained the age of 55 years on 31.12.1996. The age of superannuation in the University was 60 years. She continued there till 31.12.2003. Because of these

¶21

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶22

¶23

incidents, petitioner was not granted pensionary benefits. Government thereafter issued orders treating the period from 18.10.1994 to 29.03.1997 as deputation.

¶24

3. On the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner, Government considered her case, taking note of pendency of W.P.(C) No.29005/2011 filed by her, and passed Ext.P3 order on 22.08.2014. It was ordered that her services for the period from 18.10.1994 to 31.12.1996 would also be reckoned for the purpose of pension along with her service in aided School and College. The University had remitted the amount towards pension contribution for the period from 18.10.1994 to 29.03.1997. The Government found that petitioner would have continued in the aided college till 31.03.1997 till the close of the academic year though the date on which she attained the age of superannuation was on 31.12.1996. It was ordered that petitioner would be granted pension and pensionary benefits for the service rendered by her

¶25

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶26

¶27

from 22.07.1968 to 29.03.1997. Thereafter Ext.P4 pension payment order was issued on 18.07.2018, authorising her pension stating that payment would commence from 30.03.1997.

¶28

4. Petitioner points out that she was granted pension only from the date on which Ext.P4 pension payment order was issued in July 2018; she is denied arrears of pension for the period from 01.04.1997 to July 2018. Petitioner points out that her pension is not fixed in the replacement scale though the said scale of 37400-67000+9000 AGP is mentioned in Ext.P4 as against the last pay drawn in the pay scale last held and last pay drawn in the scale of 12000-420-18300; her average emoluments was shown as Rs.15,654/- only.

¶29

5. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter

¶30

affidavit stating that the normal date of superannuation of the petitioner was on 31.12.1996. However she could have continued in the College till the end of the academic year i.e., till 31.03.1997, in view of Rule 60(C) of Part I KSR.

¶31

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶32

¶33

However the services rendered after she attained

¶34

the date of superannuation on 31.12.1996 would not be reckoned for the purpose of calculating average emoluments or for pensionary benefits. Therefore the petitioner's pension has been computed with reference to the service rendered by her up to 31.12.1996. It is stated that while petitioner was working in the University, she was granted the benefit of UGC pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 and her scale of pay was revised as 37400–67000. It is stated that the Accountant General sanctioned her pension based on the revised scale of Rs. 37400–67000 (AGP 9000) taking last pay as Rs.46,400/-. It is stated that petitioner submitted her pension papers only after several years of the date of superannuation on 31.12.1996. Therefore she is not entitled to arrears of pay from the date of superannuation in the light of Rule 120 of Part III KSR, except on the strength of special orders from Government and that pension can

¶35

be given only with prospective effect.

¶36

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶37

¶38

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is against denial of arrears of pension. It is seen that petitioner could have submitted her pension papers only after the Government issued Ext.P3 order. That order itself is issued referring to the W.P.(C) No.29005 of 2011 filed by her. It was only in Ext.P3 order that Government ordered to grant her pension reckoning her service from 22.07.1968 to 29.03.1997. Moreover the pension payment order has also stated that payment would commence from 30.03.1997. That being so, the denial of arrears of pension from 1.04.1997 till the date of Ext.P4 PPO is unreasonable.

¶39

7. Regarding the replacement scale, though 2^nd respondent has stated that petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.46,400/- with effect from 01.01.1996, the average emoluments arrived at for settling his pension is Rs.15,654/- only which can in no way be with reference to the pay in the revised scale.

¶40

In the circumstances there shall be a direction

¶41

to the respondents to sanction and disburse the

¶42

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶43

¶44

arrears of pension due to the petitioner from 01.04.1997 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶45

The respondents 2 and 3 shall also look into the complaint of the petitioner as to the denial of pension to her with reference to her pay which is stated to have been revised from 01.01.1996, and take appropriate action to fix her pension, in case there is any mistake in computation. Petitioner would be free to submit a representation before Government pointing out the

¶46

same and Government shall consider the same and pass orders on it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No.123 OF 2020(M)

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 17.10	COPY .1994	OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED .
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PASSE AND D	COPY D BY EVELO	OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (PLANNING PMENT UNIVERSITY OF KERALA)..
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE GOVER	COPY NMENT	OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DATED 22.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE	COPY	OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE	COPY	OF THE SERVICE DETAILS.

Lizy Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lizy Paul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjini Gopalan Vs Sajitha N.Nair

T. Vijayan Vs Mr. B.S.Thirumeni

Rasna Raveendran M.C., Vs the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Santhosh N.C Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kvm College of Science and Technology, Vs Cochin University of Science

A.K. Babu, Vs S.Venkatesapathy