Allowed

Jayadevan.O.S, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Mar 2022WP(C)/6887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court held that the power to decide on reckoning prior service for pension lies with the Board, not the Accounts Officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the petition afresh with an opportunity of hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P1) was set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the representation afresh, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and dispose of it within two months

Jayadevan.O.S, Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6887 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JAYADEVAN.O.S,
AGED 54 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
S.C.A.D.A SUB DIVISION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
PERINGALKUTHU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680721
BY ADV P.GOPAL

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶10

2THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3CENTRE FOR MATERIALS FOR ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, SHORANUR
ROAD,MULANGUNNATHUKAVU P.O, ATHANI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, , PIN - 680771
BY ADVS.

¶11

SHRI.B.PREMOD, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
ADDL.CENTRAL GOVT.STANDING COUNSEL

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SC FOR KSEB K.S.ANIL;SR.ADV.SUDHI VASUDEVAN INSTRUCTED BY
ADV,JOSE JONES JOSEPH FOR R3.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 6887 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2022

¶19

The petitioner had initially worked as Scientific Assistant in the 3^rd respondent, an autonomous body under the Department of Information and Technology, Government of India. Later he applied for the post of Sub Engineer in KSEB Ltd and was appointed after a due process of selection conducted by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner wants the period from 17.7.1992 to 23.6.2001, when he had worked as Scientific Assistant in the 3^rd respondent, to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. The petitioner’s request in this regard stands rejected by Ext.P1. The reason stated is that hence the 3^rd respondent is following CPF Scheme and not the Service Pension Scheme, pro rata pension liability cannot be collected from the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner assails Ext.P1 mainly on two grounds;

¶20

1. The order was issued by the Accounts Officer and not by the Board.

¶21

2)On earlier occasions, the service of persons who had

¶22

WP(C) NO. 6887 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

worked in organizations to which CPF Scheme was applicable, has been considered favourably.

¶25

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside on the above two grounds and for the present, the petitioner will be satisfied if the Board is directed to consider his request afresh.

¶26

3.Heard Adv.K.S Anil appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Senior Counsel Sudhi Vasudevan instructed by Adv. Jose Joseph, for the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

4.I am prima facie convinced that the petitioner having made a request to reckon his service with the 3^rd respondent as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, it was for the Board, and not the Accounts Officer, to have taken a decision on the request. As such I am inclined to set aside Ext.P1 order on that limited ground. The contention that in similar cases, favourable orders have been passed, is for the authorities to consider.

¶28

In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P1 order. The 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2

¶29

WP(C) NO. 6887 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

representation afresh, uninfluenced by the findings in Ext.P1. Needless to say that before passing orders on the representation, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The 1^st respondent shall pass orders on the representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 6887 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6887/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.PA.GL/2694/670/PRIOR SERVICE/18-19/9 DATED
12.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER IN
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit p2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH LETTER
NO.EB2/PGL/2021-22 DATED 28.12.2021 OF THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB

Jayadevan.O.S, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayadevan.O.S, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Snehalal K. C. Vs the Chief Engineer Hrm

Sheeja Chandran, Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

V. Rajesh Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Rajadas P.N. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Thamil Viswakarma Samooham, Vs State of Kerala

Asha P.R., Vs the State of Kerala