Dismissed

George P.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/3617/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition filed by a retired employee of KAMCO. He sought full pay and allowances for a two-year period during which he worked beyond the statutory retirement age of 58 years until 60 years under an interim order. The Board had decided to pay a fixed consolidated rate of Rs.16,500 per month instead of the last drawn salary.

What the court decided

AI extract

George P.T Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3617 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE P.T
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS P.T., ESTATE OFFICER (RTD.),
PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, UPPUTHODE, RAJAMUDI P.O., IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN-685604.

¶8

BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
SRI.M.B.SOORI
SRI.JAISON JOSEPH(KOOTHATTUKULAM)
SHRI.BABU M.
SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, AGRICULTURE (P.U) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED (KAMCO),
(GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), REPRESENTING
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ATHANI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-
683585.

¶11

3THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED (KAMCO),
(GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), ATHANI, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM-683585.

¶12

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

¶13

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶14

¶15

SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI. JAY MOHAN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR GP SRI. BIMAL K. NATH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING.

¶19

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2024)

¶23

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, was appointed as Assistant Manager (security) for the 2^nd respondent, the Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited (KAMCO). Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Staff by laws, 1973, govern the service conditions of the corporation. The retirement age of the workmen is in accordance with the certified standing orders issued by the 2^nd respondent. As per Clause (xx) of Ext.P2, the retirement age of the workmen in the Athani Unit is 60 years. Three other units were started by the 2^nd respondent at Kalamassery, Palakkad, and Mala, and the retirement age of the workmen in these units was fixed at 58 years. Service conditions of the workmen of the four units of the 2^nd respondent are different. Negotiations with the representatives of the recognised trade unions and the management were done, and a memorandum of settlement was signed on 27.03.2008 and 14.8.2008. The Government also accorded sanction to it. The workers of the unit made a demand to allow them to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, and the meeting was held on 27.2. 2013 by the management and the representatives of the Union with the Hon’ble Ministry for Agriculture, and a final decision is pending. The petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 31.8.2015. He approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.25655/2015, as he has not been granted

¶24

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶25

¶26

an extension to continue till the age of 60 years. An interim order was passed by this court directing the respondent to allow him continuance service, and on 18.8.2017, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment wherein it was recorded that he has continued at the age of 60 years and claim for pay and allowance for the period he had worked pursuant to the interim order was left open for the management to decide on merits. The petitioner filed representations before the 3^rd respondent for a grant of pay and allowances for the period from 31.08.2015 to 25.08.2017. Later he came to know that a consolidated monthly amount of Rs.16,500/- was granted for the period from September, 2015 to 25.8.2017. He has drawn a monthly salary of Rs.58,830/- as on 31.08.2015. Therefore, he approached this court to direct the respondents to pay the full pay and allowances to the petitioner from 1.9.2015 to 25.8.2017.

¶27

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, in which it is contended that the petitioner joined the service of the 2^nd respondent KAMCO on 25.11.2004 as Assistant Manager (security). He was later promoted as Estate Officer Grade-10 to the Athani Unit on 12.7.2011. The retirement age for the employees at the Athani Unit is fixed at 58 years. Therefore, he approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.25655 of 2015, in which this court passed an Interim order dated 31.8.2015, whereby he was allowed to continue without any salary. Thereafter, by G.O. dated 3.9.2015, the petitioner was relieved from the

¶28

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶29

¶30

service of the respondent corporation on 25.8.2017.

¶31

The Government, by order dated 03.09.2015, confirms that the retirement age of the employees who had been appointed after 15.01.2002 in KAMCO will continue to be 58 years. Since the petitioner joined the service after 15.01.2002, his retirement age was fixed 58 years, in tune with Ext.R2(b). The writ petition, in which an interim order was passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to continue into service, was disposed of on 18.08.2017. But the issue of pay and allowances due to the petitioner pursuant to the interim order was left open for the management to decide on merit. The 2^nd respondent took up the matter regarding the pay and allowance of the petitioner in the 338^th board meeting held on 15.09.2017 and decided to grant Rs. 16,500/- per month for the period from 31.08.2015 to 25.08.2017 beyond the age of 58 years. He was paid Rs.3,92,806/- and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that this Hon'ble Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition, granted the management absolute freedom to decide the payment of salary on merits. The last pay drawn by the petitioner was Rs.65,640/-, whereas the salary disbursed is at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per month. The salary is only a consolidated rate, which is the wage rate paid to a casual labourer. The petitioner has worked for 24 months, and therefore,

¶33

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶34

¶35

he is entitled to get his salary based on the last pay salary drawn by him upon attaining the age of 58 years.

¶36

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

¶37

The petitioner was allowed to continue in service without any salary as per the interim order dated 31.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No.25655 of 2015; it was also made clear that the petitioner cannot claim any benefits for the period in which he is continued on the ground of equity alone if the Government decides against the petitioner. On 03.09.2015, the Government took up the issue regarding the enhancement of the age of the employees in KAMCO in Athani, and it was decided that the retirement age will continue to be 58 years. The petitioner filed Ext.R2(g) on 31.08.2015, along with the interim order passed by this Court requesting to allow him to continue. On the same day, Ext.R2(h) was issued by the 3rd respondent, making it clear that from 01.09.2015 onwards, the petitioner will not be entitled to any service benefits. Even though the Government order, Ext. R2(b) dated 03.09.2015 came into force, the petitioner continued in service based on Ext.R2(a) till he completed 60 years, and the Writ Petition was closed thereafter. The petitioner cannot contend that he was unaware of Ext.R2(b). His continuation in the corporation can only be subject to the conditions in the interim order. While closing the Writ Petition, the management of

¶38

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶39

¶40

the respondent KAMCO was given the liberty to decide on pay and allowance due to the petitioner. The Board meeting held on 15.09.2017 has consciously decided to pay him Rs.16,500/- per month. The petitioner had accepted Ext.R2(h) and continued in service until he reached 60 years at his risk.

¶41

The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Limited v. Jayan John [2023 (2) KHC 471] and argued that the petitioner is entitled to at least 50% of the last drawn salary, which he was drawing as on the effective date of retirement at 58 years. That was the case in which this Court declared the age of superannuation of employees of Kerala State Beverages Corporation as 58 years. The State Government filed an appeal and obtained a stay of the judgment, and subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. A Single bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6047 of 2010 held that the respondent corporation shall pay the petitioners compensation calculated at the rate of 50% of their last drawn salary as on the effective date of the retirement from the date of Kavirajan's case till the date of their completing the age of 58 years. The corporation challenged the said judgment before the Division Bench of this Court. But the Division Bench refused to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and confirmed the same. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the case relied on. Herein, the petitioner, at his own

¶42

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶43

¶44

risk, was allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years to 60 years. While granting the interim order, it was specifically ordered that the petitioner cannot claim any benefits for the period in which he is continued on the ground of equity alone if the Government decides against the petitioner. Immediately after the interim order was passed, on 03.09.2015, the Government decided to limit the retirement age of employees appointed after 15.01.2002 in KAMCO to 58 years. The petitioner continued in service after 03.09.2015, knowing very well that the Government had already declined the corporation's request for an enhancement in age. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot claim the salary which he was drawing at the age of 58 years. If the petitioner is allowed the last pay drawn and allowances, is as good as enhancing the age of superannuation of the petitioner to 60 years.

¶45

In view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Board's decision to fix the petitioner's salary at Rs.16,500/- per month from 01.09.2015 to 25.08.2017 is in order, as this Court has permitted the Board to take a decision independently. I find no grounds to interfere with the Board's decision.

¶46

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

¶48

ss/Mms

¶49

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3617/2020

¶52

`PETITIONER‘S EXHIBITS` `EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER` `NO.04/2004-05 DATED 15.11.2004.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 13.10.2003` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INDICATING THE` `AMENDMENTS OF EXHIBIT P2.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.04/2009` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `08.10.2009, UNIFICATION OF THE SERVICE` `CONDITIONS OF THE WORKMEN OF ALL FOUR UNITS` `OF KAMCO.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.5927/P.U3/2013/AGRICULTURE,` `DATED` `27.03.2013, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.32161/P.U3/2012/AGRICULTURE,` `DATED` `28.05.2014, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN` `WP(C)25655/2015, DATED 18.08.2017.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `25.08.2017.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR` `AGRICULTURE ON 13.12.2018.`
`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R2(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `31.08.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.25655/2015.`
`EXHIBIT R2(b)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (MS)` `NO.140/15/AD DATED 03.09.2015.`
`EXHIBIT R2(c)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER DATED` `09.11.2017.`
`EXHIBIT R2(d)`	`A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT AS` `ASSISTANT MANAGER (SECURITY) IN THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 24.11.2024.`
`EXHIBIT R2(e)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.01.2019 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION ADDRESSED TO` `THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE.`
`Exhibit R2(f)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 338TH BOARD`

¶53

W.P.C.No.3617 of 2020

¶54

10 MEETING OF THE 1ST APPLICANT COMPANY HELD ON 15.09.2017 Exhibit R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE 1ST APPLICANT HEREIN Exhibit R2(h) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT'S LETTER DATED 31.08.2015 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN

George P.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

George P.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N. Dinoop, Vs Jamal Mohammed

Venugopalan V.V. Vs Baiju Mon K.P

Liquidator Vs Venugopalan V.V.

Anil Vasu Vs the Village Officer

Sindhu B. Vs the State of Kerala

N.v.Kareem Vs the Divisional Railway Manager