Allowed

Shemeema Pookkot, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/10416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a petitioner appointed as LPST in 2011 against a regular vacancy, who subsequently received approval on a scale of pay basis from that date, is entitled to inclusion in the statutory pension scheme. The court quashed the government order rejecting her claim and directed inclusion and refund of contributions.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 ordered quashed; petitioner directed to be included in statutory pension scheme; contributions remitted towards NPS to be refunded within three months.

Shemeema Pookkot, Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 FRIDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 10416 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

 SHEMEEMA POOKKOT,
 AGED 36 YEARS
 W/O.NAWAAS, LPST, MADRASATHUL ISLAMIYA L.P.SCHOOL,
 PILAKOOL, THALASSERY-670 102, (RESIDING AT POOKKOT
 HOUSE, CHALIL, THALASSERY-670 102).

¶6

 BY ADVS.
 T.T.MUHAMOOD
 A.RENJIT
 V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
 A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
 NAZEER HUZAIN.H
 T.R.VISHNU

¶7

 RESPONDENTS:

¶8

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

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶10

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEO, THALASSERY, PIN-670 101.

¶11

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, THALASSERY SOUTH, PIN-670 101.

¶12

5 THE MANAGER, MADRASATHUL ISLAMIYA LP SCHOOL, PILAKKOOL, THALASSERY-670 102.

¶13

 SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
 ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P. (C) No.10416 of 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P8 order by which the Government has rejected the request made by the petitioner for inclusion in the statutory pension scheme on the ground that the appointment effected was not a substantive appointment against a regular post.

¶18

The petitioner states that she was appointed as LPST in the Madrasathul Islamiya L.P School with effect from 01.06.2011 against a vacancy that arose consequent to the retirement of a certain Smt.Prasanna Kumari. The petitioner states that approval was granted by the AEO on a daily wage basis as per the order dated 27.08.2013. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by the denial of approval on a scale of pay basis, with effect from 01.06.2011, she approached this Court, and pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P5 order granting approval to the petitioner on a scale of pay basis with effect from 01.06.2011. It is contended that approval having been granted with effect from 01.06.2011, the petitioner is entitled

¶19

to all benefits available to a regular school teacher with effect from

¶20

W.P. (C) No.10416 of 2022

¶21

¶22

01.06.2011. The representation submitted by the petitioner for inclusion

¶23

was however rejected on the ground that her appointment was not a substantive appointment against a regular post. Though a review petition was filed, the same was also rejected. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P8 Government order.

¶25

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to include the petitioner under statutory pension scheme as provided under Part III Kerala Service Rules.

¶26

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund the contribution realised from the petitioner towards the national pension system.

¶27

Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioner, submits that in view of the grant of approval from 01.06.2011 against regular vacancy, the petitioner became entitled to be included in the statutory pension scheme. Reliance is placed on the observations and directions issued by this Court in Thomas Joseph and Others v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation No.2020/KER/35393) to substantiate his contention.

¶29

W.P. (C) No.10416 of 2022

¶30

¶31

I have heard the learned Government Pleader, and I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶32

I find that the Government, by order dated 7.1.2013, has introduced and adopted the National Pension Scheme in respect of all appointments made in the State of Kerala with effect from 1.4.2013. However, the appointments approved prior to 1.4.2013 fell under Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Government by Ext.P5 order dated 16.08.2019, has ordered the grant of approval of the petitioner on a scale of pay basis with effect from 01.06.2011. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy that arose on account of retirement, and the said vacancy has arisen in a post sanctioned as per the staff fixation order. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is fully entitled to be included under the statutory pension scheme. Ext.P8 order cannot be sustained under law.

¶33

Resultantly, the following orders are issued.

¶34

a) Ext.P8 will stand quashed.

¶35

W.P. (C) No.10416 of 2022

¶36

¶37

b) There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to include the

¶38

petitioner under the statutory pension scheme.

¶39

c) The amounts, if any, remitted towards the National Pension

¶40

Scheme by the petitioner shall be returned.

¶41

d) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of

¶42

three months.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶46

IAP

¶47

W.P. (C) No.10416 of 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10416/2022

¶50

 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶51

`Exhibit`	`P1` `TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 01.06.2011.`
`Exhibit`	`P2` `TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER` `NO.D.DIS/G-1854/2011 DATED 14.07.2011 ISSUED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P3` `TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G/1410/2011/K.DIS` `DATED 23.09.2011 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4` `TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G4/10709/13/DPI/K.DIS` `DATED 06.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P5` `TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3278/2019/G.EDN DATED` `16.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6` `TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/3459/2019/K.DIS` `DATED 15.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P7` `TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO/.20/2013/FIN DATED` `07.01.2013.`
`Exhibit`	`P8` `TRUE COPY OF LR.NO.T1/200/2021/G.EDN DATED` `31.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9` `TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER ON 03.03.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P9 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED` `07.03.2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`

Shemeema Pookkot, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shemeema Pookkot, v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alphonsa Ancy Vs Director of General Education

Shemeera v. Vs State of Kerala

Lejeesh.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sherin Francis C. Vs State of Kerala

All Petroleum Products Transporters Association Vs the Chairman Cum-Managing Director

S.Prabhakaran Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.