Allowed

Viswanathan v. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024WP(C)/28083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that his prior service with Doordarshan must be reckoned for pension calculation. The court relied on Kerala Service Rules and the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, clarifying that the employee remained a Central Government employee until transfer after the relevant order was passed.

What did the court decide?

Pension re-fixation for qualifying service from 21.11.1988 to 13.06.1999 with arrears disbursed.

Viswanathan v. Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 28083 OF 2017

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VISWANATHAN V. AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KARIKUTTY, RETD. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.5, KAIRALI NAGAR, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶11

3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, SANCHAR BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110011.

¶12

4 THE DIRECTOR PRASAR BHARATHI, BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110011.

¶13

5 THE STATION ENGINEER HIGH POWER TRANSMITTERS, DOOR DHARSAN KENDRA, PRASAR BHARATHI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030. BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.28083 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner retired from the service of the 1^st respondent Board on 31.05.2017. He is aggrieved by the non-reckoning of his prior service in the Doordarshan

¶19

for the purpose of calculating pension.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel on either

¶21

side.

¶22

The petitioner joined the service of the 1^st

¶23

respondent Board on 14.06.1999 and retired on 31.05.2017. Prior to his joining in the 1^st respondent Board, he served in the Doordarshan from 21.11.1988 to 13.06.1999.

¶24

The request of the petitioner before the Board

¶25

to reckon his period of service in the Doordarshan also

¶26

for the purpose of pension, was rejected as per Ext.P6

¶27

W.P.(C)No.28083/2017 -: 2 :-

¶28

stating that, the liability with respect to the pro-rata pension is to be absorbed by the Doordarshan.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel on either

¶30

side.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the Kerala Service Rules have been made applicable to the employees of the

¶32

Board. Note 2 of Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala

¶33

Service Rules, which came into force w.e.f. 12.11.2002, provides that the prior services of the employee is liable to be reckoned, and the liability for the pensionary benefits for the services in the earlier department is also to be borne by the department in which the employee was working at the time of his retirement. In the light of the above, the petitioner is

¶34

entitled to have his earlier services in the Doordarshan, reckoned for pension. The above view is supported by the judgment of this Court in Babu M.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.28083/2017

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

Poulose v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and

¶38

others (2014 (2) KHC 187) . The said decision has been

¶39

affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1660 of 2014.

¶40

The learned counsel for the Board raised a contention that, the petitioner who was employed in

¶41

Doordarshan is not a central government employee and hence cannot claim the benefit as above.

¶42

I am unable to agree with the above contention. Section 11(1) and (4) of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, as it stood prior to 8.3.2012, read thus :-

¶43

“ 11. Transfer of service of existing employees to Corporation .-(1) Where the Central Government has ceased to perform any functions which under section 12 are the functions of the Corporation, it shall be lawful for the Central Government to transfer, by order and with effect from such date or dates as may be specified in the order, to the Corporation any of the officers or other employees serving in the Akashavani or Doordarshan and engaged in the performance of those functions :

¶44

W.P.(C)No.28083/2017

¶45

-: 4 :-

¶46

Provided also that when an officer or other employee serving in the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or in any of its attached or subordinate offices is promoted to officiate in a higher post in the Ministry or office subsequent to the transfer to the Corporation of any other officer or employee senior to him in that Ministry or office before such transfer, the officer or other employee who is promoted to officiate in such higher post shall, on transfer to the Corporation, be entitled only to the scale of pay applicable to the post he would have held but for such promotion or the scale of pay applicable to he post under the Corporation to which he is transferred, whichever he may opt.

¶47

(4) An officer or other employee transferred by an order under sub-section (1) shall, on and from the date of transfer, cease to be an employee of the Central Government and become an employee of the Corporation with such designation as the Corporation may determine and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) and (6), be governed by such regulations as may be made as respects remuneration and other conditions of service including pension, leave and provident fund and shall continue to be an officer or other employee of the Corporation unless and until his employment is terminated by the Corporation.

¶48

Evidently Section 11(1) stipulates for the passing of order by the Central Government with regard to transfer of the officers or other employees to the Corporation. The Apex Court in Prasar Bharti and Ors v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors. 2007 (9) SCC 539 held that “So long as an order under sub-

¶49

W.P.(C)No.28083/2017

¶50

-: 5 :-

¶51

section (1) is not passed, indisputably the employees and officers would continue to be the employees of the Central Government”. Therein the Apex Court noticed that even as on the date of passing of the judgment (02.02.2007) no such order was passed. Therefore, the employees continue to be Central Government employees.

¶52

Therefore the petitioner is entitled to have his prior service in Doordarshan also reckoned for pension.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner's service in the Doordarshan for the period from 21.11.1988 to 13.06.1999 is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension. The Board shall take expeditious steps to have the pension re-fixed and the arrears disbursed.

W.P.(C)No.28083/2017

-: 6 :-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28083/2017

¶58

PETITIONER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT P1-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/10/1998 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2-	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 11/06/1999 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3-	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4-	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (P)651/03/FIN. DATED 06/12/2003.
EXHIBIT P5-	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/12/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6-	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
	07/04/2017 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2014(2)KHC 187(BABU M.PAULOSE VS KSEB).
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PRASAR BHARATHI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) ACT 1990.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR AMENDMENTS TO PRASAR BHARATHI ACT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF PRASAR BHARATHI
	(BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) AMENDMENT ACT 2011.

Viswanathan v. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan v. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Smitha Mary George, Vs State of Kerala

K.Chandran Vs Government of Kerala

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala

B.Girija Devi Vs State of Kerala

Emily Angel Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat

N. Paul Raj Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.