Dismissed

K. Karthikeyan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/17217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a retired employee, the Court examined the claim that prior service rendered in the Central Government (GREF) should be reckoned for pension calculation. The Court held that the relevant Government Order was not applicable as the employer Corporation had not adopted it, relying on a Division Bench decision. Additionally, the Court dismissed the petition due to the 17-ye

What did the court decide?

None granted; the petition challenging the rejection of prior service for pension reckoning was dismissed.

K. Karthikeyan Vs the Kerala State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17217 OF 2018

¶6

NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:

¶7

K. KARTHIKEYAN,AGED 72 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN,(RETIRED MECHANIC, MAVELIKARA DEPOT,KSRTC), RESIDING AT LEELA BHAVAN, PATHIYOOR, KEERIKADU P.O.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

BY ADV Deepu Thankan

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 2

¶15

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶16

W.P.(Civil). No.17217 of 2018

¶17

................................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the 1^st respondent whereby the request of the petitioner to include the period of service spent in General Research Engineering Force (hereinafter referred to as “GREF”) for calculating his pensionary benefits, was rejected. The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent Corporation, who entered service in the Mechanical Wing of the Corporation in the year 1971 and retired from service on 30.09.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that before joining the 1st respondent Corporation, the petitioner was employed in GREF, under the Government of India for the period from 26.09.1968 to 05.05.1971. By Ext.P1 discharge certificate, he was discharged from the said service on 05.05.1971 and thereafter, joined the service of the Corporation in the year 1971. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the respondent sanctioned and disbursed the pensionary benefits, the period of service in GREF for the period from 26.09.1968 to 05.05.1971 was excluded for calculating the retirement benefits. Even though he represented before the authorities, his claim was rejected by Ext.P2

¶20

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 3

¶21

order dated, 09.04.2018. It is challenging the said order, the present Original Petition is filed.

¶22

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents mainly contending that even though, the petitioner had retired from service as early as on 30.09.2000, the petitioner has approached the Corporation only on 09.03.2017, i.e., almost after 17 years after his retirement, with a request to reckon the period of service rendered by him in GREF for the period from 29.09.1968 to 05.05.1971, for the purpose of pension and re-fixing his pensionary benefits and therefore, there is an undue delay on the part of the petitioner in making the said claim. It is also contended by the respondent Corporation that, the Government Order declaring the service in GREF as qualifying service for pension cannot be applied to the employees of the Corporation in as much as the Corporation has not adopted any such Government order. In support of the said contention, the respondents rely on the judgment of this Court in Kunju Mohammed v. K.S.R.T.C.,

¶23

2009 (3) KLT 391.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶25

The petitioner contended that there is absolutely no reason

¶26

to reject his claim as per Exhibit P2 and that the petitioner is entitled to

¶27

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 4

¶28

count the period of service for reckoning the length of service for calculating the retirement benefits. Petitioner relies on the judgment of

¶29

the full bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. P. Haridasan and others, 2015 KHC 159 to contend for the position that his prior service in Central Government is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. After going through the judgment relied on by the petitioner, I feel that the same is not applicable in the facts of this case in as much as in that case the issue involved was regarding the counting of prior Central Government service to the service of an aided college teacher and in the case of teachers, the statute itself specifically mandates that provisions of the Kerala Service Rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to teachers in the private aided colleges. The question to be decided in this case is as to whether the Government Order permitting reckoning of prior service in GREF as qualifying service for the purpose of pension is applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation.

¶30

In Kunju Mohammed 's case (supra), the issue that came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court is as to whether the service rendered by the appellant therein in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) could be reckoned for the purpose of computing the terminal benefits payable by the KSRTC. Paragraph 6 of the judgment reads as follows:

¶31

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 5

¶32

"6. The provisions of the K.S.R specify what are the qualifying services to be reckoned for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. R.11 of Part-III K.S.R enables the Government to declare any other service than those specifically mentioned also as qualifying service. When the K.S.R.T.C adopts the said Rule, it should be read as enabling the K.S.R.T.C to declare other services also as qualifying service. In this case, it is not in dispute that, the K.S.R.T.C has not taken any specific decision concerning the reckoning of service rendered by its employees in the C.R.P.F. So, in the absence of any decision in this regard by the K.S.R.T.C invoking R.11 of Part-III K.S.R, we feel that the claim of the appellant cannot be upheld. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge."

¶33

In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court declined relief to the

¶34

appellant therein since the respondent Corporation has not taken any specific decision to adopt the period of service rendered by its employees in CRPF.

¶35

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in

¶36

paragraph 7 it is stated as follows:

¶37

"7) It is respectfully submitted that apart from the above contention, it is submitted that the government order declaring the service in GREF as qualifying service for pension is not applicable to the Corporation, as the Corporation has not adopted the said Government order. So long as the KSRTC has not adopted the said government order, the said government order will not have any application to the service of the employees of the corporation. The said position was declared by the Honourable Division Bench of this Honourable Court in the decision reported in Kunhumuhammed.M.A. Vs. K.S.R.T.C (ILR 2009(3) Ker. 451)."

¶38

Therefore, the specific case of the respondent Corporation is that since

¶39

they have not adopted the Government Order declaring the service in

¶40

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 6

¶41

GREF as qualifying service for pension, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of any such order issued by the Government. In view of the same, I feel that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in Kunju Muhammed 's case, supra, and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The present claim by the petitioner for counting his prior service in GREF for calculating the qualifying service for pension was made almost after 17 years after his retirement in 2000, and therefore, the claim if any cannot be agitated at this length of time as the same is hit by delay and laches.

¶42

In view of the above, I find no merit in the contention raised

¶43

by the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶46

¶47

WP(C) No.17217 of 2018 7

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17217/2018

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GREF.

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENRT.

K. Karthikeyan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Karthikeyan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

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

Asharaf Vs State of Kerala

John Kuriakose Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Thulaseedharan Vs State of Kerala

E.Sunil Vs K.S.R.T.C

Dr.T.R.Chandramohan Vs the Commissioner of Police

The Koovappally Service Co-Operative Vs the State of Kerala