Kerala High Court
Dr. N. Vijayakumar vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18274 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
DR. N. VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O G NAGAPPAN NAIR, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE (RE-
DESIGNATED AS ASSOCIATED PROFESSOR) (RETD), IN
RUSSIAN, MAHATMA GANDHI COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT "PARVATHI", MPS-A6, MANGANOORKONAM LANE,
WEST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
BY ADVS.
S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
M.H.ASIF ALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY IS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
(SOUTH ZONE), ST. THOMAS SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEAR
ORTHODOX BISHOP CHURCH, CROSS JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691
001.
4 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E ),
INDIAN AUDIT & ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE
ACCOUNT GENERAL ( A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
2
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
THE PRINCIPAL,
MAHATMA GANDHI COLLEGE, PATTOM
5
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
6 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (KERALA),
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE (PO),
THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 004.
SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022.
The petitioner says that he joined the services of an
Aided College affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi
University (M.G.University) as a Lecturer, on 01.11.1985;
and retired on the attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.03.2007. He says that, he had, prior to the said
service, served the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for
merely 9 years 6 months and 27 days and therefore, that
said period is also deserving to be counted for
computation of his pensionary benefits. He asserts that
the legal position in this regard has been affirmatively
declared by a full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala
V. Haridasan [2015 (2) KLT 145(F.B)]; and that, in
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
fact, taking note of the same, benefits sought for by him
have already been granted to another person on the
basis of another judgment of this Court, namely Ext.P2.
He pointed that the 2nd respondent - Director of
Collegiate Education, therefore, correctly forwarded his
Service Book with a recommendation for computation of
his pensionary benefits including the afore period spent
by him in FCI; but that said respondent has returned the
Book, vide Ext.P4, citing the reason that Government of
Kerala has not issued any order to reckon the prior
service of Central Autonomous Bodies along with the
Aided College Service and further that benefits of Ext.P2
judgment will be applicable only to the writ petitioner
therein.
2. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P4 is illegal and
unlawful and thus prays that same be set aside.
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
3. I have heard Sri.S.Muhammed Haneef -
learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Jose Kuriakose -
learned Standing Counsel for the FCI and Smt.Parvathy
Kottol - learned Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents
4. Smt.Parvathy Kottol - learned Government
Pleader, submitted that Ext.P4 is irreproachable because
the petitioner cannot seek the same benefits as have
been obtained by the writ petitioner in Ext.P2 judgment,
because it was delivered in the specific facts of the said
case. She argued that as long as the petitioner is not
able to produce any document to show that his prior
service in the FCI has been ordered to be reckoned for
the purpose of pensionary benefits by the Government of
Kerala, he cannot obtain any relief. She thus prayed that
this writ petition be dismissed.
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
5. Sri.Jose Kuriakose - learned Standing Counsel
for the FCI, submitted that his client has no role to play in
the controversy projected in the case and that it is solely
between the petitioner and the official respondents.
6. When I consider the afore submissions and in
particular the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, it is manifest
that same had been issued based on the declarations of
the learned Full Bench in Haridasan (supra). It is also
mentioned therein that the contention impelled by the
official respondents in the said case was that the benefit
of reckoning previous service will be available only if the
former employer had remitted the proportionate pro rata
pension liability; but this was repelled, as being not
tenable, in view of an earlier judgment obtained by the
petitioner therein.
7. In the case at hand, there is no contention
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
raised by the official respondents that the pro rata
pension has to be recovered from the previous
employee, namely FCI. All which is stated in Ext.P4 is
that the Government of Kerala has not issued an order to
reckon the prior service in Central Autonomous Bodies,
along with Aided Colleges Service and that the
declarations in Ext.P2 are applicable only to the
petitioner therein.
8. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with Ext.P4
at all because, in Haridasan (supra), the law has been
declared unambiguously, which has not been adverted to
at all by the Authority who has issued the said order.
9. That apart, in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court had
occasion to consider an analogous situation and then
proceeded to order that the principle of constructive res-
judicata would apply in the case of that petitioner,
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
because of the earlier judgment he had obtained. Of
course, the petitioner has not obtained such a judgment,
but in view of Haridasan (supra) the position of law
cannot be disregarded.
10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the
matter will require to be reconsidered by the 4 th
respondent, for which purpose, Ext.P4 certainly will have
to be set aside.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside
Ext.P4; with a consequential direction to the 4 th
respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner,
based on the recommendations made by the 2 nd
respondent and after affording him an opportunity of
being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is
possible, within a period of three months from the date
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, while the afore exercise is
completed, the 4th respondent will advert specifically to
the declarations in Haridasan (supra) and assess the
claim of the petitioner in comparison to that made by the
writ petitioner in Ext.P2 judgment and his opinion on the
same shall be reflected in the resultant order.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Raj/29.06.2022.
W.P.(C)No. 18274 of 2022.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18274/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO 39/2006/FIN
DATED 23.1.2006
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
7.2.2020 IN W.A NO 129/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
BEARING NO N3/13410/2022/DCE DATED
20.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
