Kerala High Court
Vasanthakumari.K vs The Senior Accounts Officer on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
PETITIONER:
VASANTHAKUMARI.K, HSA (RETIRED), VARAPRASADAM, 1C,
KARISHMA RESIDENCY, HARI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM,
THRISSUR-2.
BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADV.SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court
seeking a direction to the respondents to reckon
her qualifying service as being twenty years and
not nineteen, as has been recorded in Exts.P2
and P3.
2. The petitioner submits that she retired
from the services of P.V.S. High School,
Kozhikode, as a High School Assistant on
31.03.2008 and that during the period of her
service, in the year 1991, there was a reduction
in student strength, consequent to which, she
was retrenched on account of the abolition of
the post. She says that, thereafter, she was
appointed on 01.06.1992 and that she continued
without any interruption until 31.03.2008.
3. The petitioner submits that when her
application for pension/gratuity/family pension
was forwarded to the first respondent, Exts.P2
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
and P3 have been issued, reducing the period
between 15.07.1991 and 31.05.1992. The
petitioner contends that, as has been declared
by this Court in Muhammed Kunji v. State of
Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 147], the period when she
was retrenched on account of fall of student
strength is also countable for the purpose of
her pension as qualifying service and,
therefore, prays that Exts.P2 and P3, to that
extent, be set aside.
4. In response to the afore submissions of
the petitioner as made by her learned counsel-
Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, the learned Senior
Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted
that while the petitioner was working as an HSA
(Malayalam) on 01.06.1988, she was thrown out of
service on 15.07.1991 for want of sufficient
student strength, but reappointed only on
01.06.1992 in an additional created post for the
academic year 1992-1993. He says that,
therefore, her net qualifying service is only
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
nineteen years, excluding the period from
15.07.1991 to 31.05.1992 and therefore, that
Exts.P2 and P3 are without any error. He
concluded his submissions by saying that Rule
31, and the Notes thereunder, in Part III of the
Kerala Service Rules (KSR) are only applicable
to Government employees and not to the aided
school teachers and that, as far as the aided
school service is concerned, Government decision
No.8, below Rule 14E of Part III KSR is
applicable. He, therefore, prayed that this
writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered the afore submissions
and it is indubitable that break in service of
the petitioner between 15.07.1991 and 31.05.1992
is admitted. The Government is relying upon
decision No.8, below Rule 14E of Part III KSR,
which mandates that the benefit of reckoning of
the periods of break, as per Note 3 below Rule
31 of Part III KSR, will be allowed in cases
where the appointments before break was not
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
provisional or for a limited period and that the
break was due to reduction of staff strength of
the institution. When this provision is taken
into account, it is obvious that the petitioner
was sent out of service on 15.07.1991 for no
fault of hers, but solely because of reduction
of student strength; and that she was
reappointed on 01.06.1992.
6. When the facts of this case are thus
analyzed, it has become ineluctable that the
ratio in Muhammed Kunji (supra) cited by the
petitioner would apply in all its force to the
petitioner, since this Court has declared that
break in service, which occurred due to
reduction of staff strength, cannot be excluded
for the purpose of computation of pension. This
judgment, or its ratio, has not been adverted to
by any of the competent Authorities until now;
but Exts.P2 and P3 have been issued disallowing
the period of break to the petitioner,
presumably relying upon the afore mentioned Rule
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
14E of Part III KSR. However, as I have already
said afore, even going by the said Rule, I
cannot find how the petitioner can be
disentitled to have the period of her break from
15.07.1991 to 31.5.1992 as qualifying service.
7. In the afore circumstances, I am of the
firm view that the petitioner is entitled to the
relief sought for in this writ petition and that
this Court will be justified in allowing it on
such terms.
In the afore circumstances, I direct the
second respondent to immediately rectify Exts.
P2 and P3 appropriately, granting the benefit of
qualifying service to the petitioner, including
the period of break in her service between
15.07.1991 and 31.05.1992, in terms of the ratio
in Muhammed Kunji (supra); and for such purpose,
necessary orders shall be issued, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
Needless to say, once the afore exercise is
completed, the resultant benefits will be
disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of
two months thereafter.
The writ petition is, thus, ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C).No.13435 OF 2012(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
APPLICATION FOR PENSION IN FORM NO.2 DATED
15.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2008.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
