Kerala High Court
Viswanathan V vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 11 April, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28083 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
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.
BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDUTHI
BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
AND BROADCASTING, SANCHAR BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT
STREET, NEW DELHI-110011.
4 THE DIRECTOR
PRASAR BHARATHI, BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF
INDIA, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110011.
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
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C)No.28083 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
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
for the purpose of calculating pension.
2. I have heard the learned counsel on either
side.
3. The petitioner joined the service of the 1 st
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.
4. The request of the petitioner before the Board
to reckon his period of service in the Doordarshan also
for the purpose of pension, was rejected as per Ext.P6
stating that, the liability with respect to the pro-rata
pension is to be absorbed by the Doordarshan.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on either
side.
6. It is not in dispute that the Kerala Service
Rules have been made applicable to the employees of the
Board. Note 2 of Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala
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
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.
Poulose v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and
others (2014 (2) KHC 187). The said decision has been
affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1660 of 2014.
7. The learned counsel for the Board raised a
contention that, the petitioner who was employed in
Doordarshan is not a central government employee and
hence cannot claim the benefit as above.
8. 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 :-
"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 :
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.
(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.
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-
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.
9. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to have his
prior service in Doordarshan also reckoned for pension.
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.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
yd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28083/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
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.
