High Court directed the First Respondent to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation regarding reckoning provisional service for pension benefits within three months after an opportunity of hearing.
Direction to First Respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28553 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
RAJENDRAN NAIR. M, AGED 58 YEARS S/O KUMARAN NAIR, HSST (ECONOMICS) (RETIRED), RESIDING AT SIVAHARI, KUNDAMKUZHI P.O. KASARGODE DISTRICT
BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28553 OF 2021 ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020 while working as H.S.S.T (Economics) from Chattanchal High School, Kasargode. Before the petitioner commenced regular service, the petitioner had three spells of provisional service commencing from 21.07.1989 to 20.121991 continuously. However, the said period of provisional service of 2 years and 5 months is not counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P7 Government Order and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Alizuamma v. Accounts Officer [2013(4) KLT 53] followed in State of Kerala v. Sabu Mathew [2019(3) KLT 606], the actual period of provisional service has to be reckoned as qualifying service, excluding the period of break, for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to reckon the said three spells ie., from
WP(C) NO. 28553 OF 2021 ..3..
21.07.1989 to 20.12.1991, for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent to reckon the service prior to his entry in the regular service in the aided school for the purpose of pensionary benefits. However, the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 is not so far disposed by the 1st respondent.
nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner at this stage, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 in the light of Ext.P7 Government Order and the judgments afore cited, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The hearing may be afforded to the petitioner
WP(C) NO. 28553 OF 2021 ..4..
either physically or through video conferencing. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the petitioner in Ext.P8 and the 1st
respondent shall dispose of Ext.P8, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
SB/13/12/2021
WP(C) NO. 28553 OF 2021 ..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXTS:
| EXT.P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 OF |
|---|---|
| THE PETITIONERS AS HSA(SS)(LEAVE SUBSTITUTE) DATED | |
| 21.7.1989 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER | |
| EXT.P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DATED 4.7.90 AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF APPROVAL ISSUED |
| BY THE MANAGER | |
| EXT.P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 |
| DATED 4.7.91 TO 20.12.91 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER |
| EXT.P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B319268/HSE/05 OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 28.12.2005 |
|---|---|
| EXT.P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2020 |
| EXT.P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.401/2011/FIN DATED 28.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXT.P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXCLUDING THE ANNEXURES DATED 20.11.2021 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reckon the period of provisional service excluding the break for pensionary benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alizuamma v. Accounts OfficerApplied¶17
Alizuamma v. Accounts Officer [2013(4) KLT 53]
State of Kerala v. Sabu MathewApplied¶17
State of Kerala v. Sabu Mathew [2019(3) KLT 606]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendran Nair
State of Kerala Rep by Secretary to General Education Department
State of Kerala Rep by Secretary to Finance Department
Director of General Education
Accountant General (A & E), Kerala
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
