Kerala High Court
K.G.Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 3RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
K.G.NARAYANAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
(RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MALAYALAM,
SACRED HEART COLLEGE,THEVARA,ERNAKULAM)
SOORANNUR MANA,AZHAKAM P.O,VIA MUKKANNUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 577
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SMT.N.SANTHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGH EDUCATIONDEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695033
3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E) KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695039
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GP. SRI.JUSTIN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2011
while working as Associate Professor, Sacred Heart College,
Thevara. His provisional service for the period from 22.09.1981
to 30.03.1982 was also reckoned by fixing his monthly
pension, which is evident from Ext.P1 dated 24.10.2011.
Thereafter, by Ext.P4 dated 06.07.2012 on the ground that the
provisional service cannot be reckoned for pensionary benefits,
the pension was revised by not giving credit to the provisional
service rendered. It is to be stated that the petitioner had
broken spells from 16.06.1982 to 29.03.1984. While this
period is reckoned for granting pensionary benefits, the period
22.09.1981 to 30.03.1982 is not seen considered in Ext.P4
while varying Ext.P1. The petitioner against the non-
consideration of the provisional service in Ext.P4 which
modified Ext.P1, represented before the 2nd respondent by
Ext.P5 dated 24.12.2012 specifically pointing out three reasons
why Ext.P4 is bad and requested for restoring Ext.P1. The
contentions specifically pointed out by the petitioner in Ext.P5,
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
are extracted below:
" 1. Statute 25 under part B of Chapter 45 of the M.G.
University statutes 1997 reads as "A teacher appointed
on probation or for temporary service shall be eligible
for such scales of pay and increments as are
admissible to permanent teachers". As such, I am
entitled to get the service from 22.09.1981 to
30.03.1982 reckoned for increment, thereby qualify for
pension.
2. The G.O.(P) 2357/1999/Fin. dated 25.11.1999,
among other things, provides that "Government have
examined the case in detail and are pleased to clarify
that the provisional service with or without break
rendered by the employees up to 30.09.1994 which
qualifies for earning increments in terms of
Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part I Kerala
Service Rules, will be reckoned as qualifying service for
pension irrespective of dates of retirement after
20.11.1989". In the light of the said provision my
service in question is liable to be reckoned for
pension, it being prior to 30.09.1994.
3. The clarification issued in Government Letter
No.17993/D3/98/H.Edn. dated 28.05.1999 addressed
to the Director of Collegiate Education,
Thiruvananthapuram, it is clarified that. " .....Hence
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
the appointments in private Colleges against the leave
vacancies cannot be considered as provisional or
temporary". This clarification also shows that my
service from 22.09.1981 to 30.03.1982, qualifies for
pension."
2. The 2nd respondent vide Ext.P6 order dated
8.3.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition, has neither
adverted to nor considered any of the contentions raised in
Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on
Government decision No. 2 under Rule 33 Part-I KSR, and
submits that it squarely clinches issue in his favour. It is to be
noted that even in the counter affidavit filed in the present
case there are no acceptable reasons shown as to how the said
Government decision will not apply to the petitioner's case. I
find considerable force in the contentions of the petitioner. It is
also important to note that out of the two spells of provisional
service, one has been reckoned while the second has been
omitted in Ext.P4. In that view of the matter Ext.P6 cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P6 and direct the 2nd
respondent to pass a fresh order specifically dealing with the
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
contentions raised in Ext.P5 as also the others available to him
under law, and pass a speaking order after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
STK
WP(C) NO. 10432 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10432/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION
REPORT NO PR2101169212/P-10/5/1511122734
DATED 24-10-2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
M1/18170/2011/COLL.EDN.DATED 25-10-2011
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO
2357/99/FIN DATED 25-11-1999
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION
PAYMENT ORDER NO P-
10/2101169212/5/P/12/15/70107755 DATED
06-07-2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 24-12-2012
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
M1/7866/2013/COLL.EDN DATED 06-03-2013
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO
209/96/H.EDN DATED 24-12-1996
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO
84/86/H.EDN DATED 02-04-1986
