Disposed

V.Muraleedharan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom

Kerala HC1 Jul 2024WP(C)/27362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Nadaswaram Player of Guruvayoor Devaswom sought counting of his Non-Master Roll service for full pension after a memo restricted benefits to regular service. The court quashed the memo as it ignored prior judgments on NMR service, and directed the Devaswom to consider regularisation of the NMR period and then decide the pension claim.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 quashed; respondents directed to consider regularisation of NMR service and pass orders on a fresh representation within three months.

V.Muraleedharan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO.27362 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

V.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, KALYANI HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY P.O, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680 103.

¶9

BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680 101.

¶13

2 ADMINISTRATOR,

¶14

GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680 101.

¶15

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT (GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM), OFFICE OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680 101.

¶16

SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WPC. 27362/2022

¶20

JUDGMENT ( Dated: 1^st July, 2024)

¶21

The petitioner retired as Nadaswaram Player from the 1^st respondent

¶22

on 30.04.2021. By Ext.P2, the petitioner was appointed as a Non-Master Roll Worker (NMR worker); thereafter, it was further extended as decided by the managing committee for a period of one year following the then pay scale and service conditions. The issue of regularisation of the petitioner as a Nadaswaram Player was placed before the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, and the Managing Committee decided to appoint the petitioner in the pay scale of 8251290/-. Based on Ext.P4, proceedings of the administrator dated 10.06.1992, he took charge as Nadaswaram Player in the temple. After completing 28 years and 10 months of service, the petitioner received a retirement notice and was directed to produce all necessary documents for calculating pension and other retirement benefits. Just before the retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation on 29.06.2020 before the 2^nd respondent requesting to calculate his Non-Master Roll

¶23

¶24

WPC. 27362/2022

¶25

service (NMR Service) rendered by him also while the pension and other

¶26

benefits are being calculated. Ext.P6 was issued, stating that his regular

¶27

service only would be considered for the full pension. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash Ext.P6 and direct the respondents to count the petitioner’s NMR Service period for full pension and consequential benefits.

¶28

A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2, and as per GO(P)No.540/94/Fin. dated 30.09.1994, the Government deleted Rule 33 of the KSR and clarified that pursuant to the amendment in Rule (9a)

¶29

(i), part II of Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, no pensioner is entitled for increments by reckoning their provisional service. As per letter No.LF (GD)A4-230/03 dated 24.05.2003, the local fund audit also clarified that the qualifying service reckoned for benefits is actually meant as provisional service, and the provisional service is defined as the service on time scale of pay with the increment, the benefit would apply to an appointment made after conducting a public test and interview and to an employer who is later ousted from service for want of vacancy

¶30

¶31

WPC. 27362/2022

¶32

and again appointed permanently when a vacancy arose. Therefore, the

¶33

petitioner’s service cannot be regularised in accordance with the existing

¶34

laws and Rules, as it was only a contractual appointment.

¶35

As per Ext.P7 judgment, the Devaswom Managing Committee

¶36

decided to take into consideration the NMR service of the employees for pension and other benefits if their appointment was on or before 30.09.1994 and also to the fact that such employment should be selected by making a public appointment by preparing rank list after conducting written test or interview. The petitioner was appointed on a

¶37

leave vacancy and thereafter as a regular employee. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to count the period of his NMR service.

¶38

Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

¶39

The prayer in the writ petition is to give direction to the respondents to count the petitioner’s service for the NMR work period to grant full pension and consequential benefits and to quash Ext.P6 memo. Since the period of the petitioner’s NMR service has not been regularised till date, the petitioner’s request for a full pension cannot be

¶40

¶41

WPC. 27362/2022

¶42

granted at this stage. If the petitioner is eligible to count the said period,

¶43

the NMR service period should be regularised first, and then only the counting of the said period should arise.

¶44

Ext.P6 is passed without considering the request for regularisation

¶45

and the judgments of this court in Ext.P7 to Ext.P10. Hence, I quash Ext.P6. Therefore, there will be a further direction to 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take into consideration the issue of regularisation of the petitioner for the period he worked as an NMR worker, and if the said period is regularised, the claim for full pension after counting the period on Ext.P7 to Ext.P10 shall be passed. The petitioner is free to file

¶46

a fresh representation pointing all these facts before the 2^nd respondent within two weeks from today. The 2^nd respondent shall pass orders on the representation within a period of three months from the date of

¶47

receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI,

JUDGE

WPC. 27362/2022

	APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27362/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.1988 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED. 12.09.1988.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22.06.1990.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10.06.1992.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A1-3063/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 24.10.2020.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B1-4751/2020 ISSUED DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR DTD. 06.11.2020.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4408/2008 AND 8159/2008 DTD. 08.07.2008.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 19312/2011 DATED 06.01.2012.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 11816 OF 2011 DTD 19.01.2012.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 11702 OF 2012DTD 17.10.2012
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R 1(a)	True copy Of the G.O.(P)540/94 fin dated 30.9-1994
Exhibit R 1(b)	True copy Of the letter No. LF (GD) A4-230/03 dated 24- 5-2003 from the Joint Director Of local Fund Audit Department to the lst respondent
Exhibit R 1(c)	The true copy decision No 170 Of GDMC dated 25-02- 2009

V.Muraleedharan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Muraleedharan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom

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

Hareesh Mukund Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar .C, Vs the Chairman & Managing Director.

K. Kalikkutty Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Cherian Vs Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.I-112

Akhil Dev Vs State of Kerala

K a Shamla Vs State of Kerala