Kerala High Court
A.Ramachandran Nair vs The Kerala Water Authority on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 1528 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2013 IN WPC NO.11179 OF
2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
S/O.K.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, CHERUVILAKATTU VEEDU,
ALAYAMPALLY KONAM, MUKKOLA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. (EX.LDC,
FAIR COPY SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
BY ADV SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY, SC KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT
ON 02.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11179 of 2010,
being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by
the learned Single Judge in that writ petition holding that the
appellant is not entitled to claim any benefit of pension as his
qualifying service is less than what is actually provided.
2. The appellant is a person suffering from 45% of
permanent orthopaedic disability. He was provisionally employed
under the respondent Kerala Water Authority in four spells, such
as, 15.06.1991 to 10.12.1991, 06.01.1992 to 02.07.1992,
23.11.1994 to 23.03.1995 and 04.04.1997 to 30.09.1997. As per
the order dated 28.09.1998, the Government has issued an order
for reappointing and regularising physically handicapped
employees who were in service during the period from 01.01.1997
to 14.08.1998. The order was made applicable to the Kerala Water
Authority also. Though the appellant was ordered to be
reappointed as per order dated 04.10.1999, he was not allowed
to join duty on the ground of non-production of the qualification
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
certificate of the Pump Operator. The appellant then approached
this Court by filing O.P. No.5465 of 2000 in which Ext.P2 judgment
dated 08.10.2001 was passed directing the appellant to file a
representation before the Secretary to Government within one
month from the date of the judgment and directing the Secretary
to pass orders thereon within one month thereafter. Pursuant to
the said direction, the appellant submitted a representation dated
22.10.2001 before the Secretary to Government, which was
rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 30.03.2002. Challenging Ext.P3
the appellant filed O.P. No.33758 of 2002 before this Court which
was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 06.02.2006 directing
to reconsider the matter. The appellant again preferred a
representation dated 03.07.2006 before the Government which
was disposed of by Ext.P7 order dated 15.11.2006 according
sanction to the respondent to give regular appointment to the
appellant either in relaxation of prescribed qualification for the
post of Pump Operator or in a post for which he is qualified.
Thereafter, the respondent issued Ext.P8 order dated 17.01.2007
according sanction to reappoint and regularize the appellant as
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
L.D Clerk in the future arising vacancy with service benefits from
23.11.1994. Pursuance to Ext.P8 order, the Senior Administrative
Officer of the respondent issued Ext.P9 order dated 14.02.2007
re-appointing the appellant to the post of L.D Clerk. Later, Ext.P10
erratum notification dated 24.03.2007 was issued by the
respondent substituting the last two paragraphs of Ext.P7. The
appellant retired from service on 30.11.2008. But, he was not
sanctioned with the pension, in spite of submitting several
representations. When he submitted the pension book, instead of
sanctioning the minimum pension, by Ext.P13 letter dated
14.08.2009 the respondent directed him to furnish the prescribed
application for sanctioning exgratia pension. Finally, on
26.07.2010 the respondent passed Ext.P17 order cancelling the
service benefits allowed to the appellant with effect from
23.11.1994 and benefit of re-appointment and regularisation with
effect from 28.09.1998. It was further ordered that the
regularisation of the appellant pursuant to the order dated
17.01.2007 shall be with effect from 15.02.2007. Thereafter the
appellant filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13
letter and Ext.P17 order. The appellant also sought a declaration
that he has got minimum qualifying service making him eligible
for minimum pension in the light of Ext.P10 and a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent to sanction and disburse
minimum pension and other retiral benefits to him.
3. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition as said above. Impugning that
judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that he
has 1 year 9 months regular service, apart from the provisional
service of 20 months. If the period of provisional service is taken
into account, he would be having a service of nearly 4 years and
even if the entire provisional service cannot be taken into account,
his last spell of provisional service of 5 months can be counted for
calculating the qualifying service in view of Ext.P8 order dated
17.01.2007 passed by the respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
Ext.P8 order dated 17.01.2007 issued by the Managing Director
of the respondent wherein it is stated that sanction is accorded
to re-appoint and regularise the appellant as L.D Clerk in the
future arising vacancy with the service benefits from 23.11.1994,
i.e, from his 3rd spell of provisional service, to argue that at least
his last spell of provisional service has to be added to the regular
service for entitling him to claim pension.
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent Water Authority submitted that the appellant was
given re-appointment to the post of L.D Clerk by Ext.P7 special
order of the Government since he did not have the qualification
for regularisation in the post of Pump Operator. In Ext.P7 it was
made clear that the re-appointment was given with prospective
effect. The mistake in Ext.P8 order pertaining to the adding of 3 rd
spell of provisional service and the calculation of service benefit
from 23.11.1994 was rectified by Ext.P17 order dated 26.07.2010
passed by the Managing Director of the respondent. Hence the
appellant is not entitled for pensionary benefits.
7. The appellant did not have the qualification for
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
regularisation in the post of Pump Operator in which he was
working provisionally during different spells. In Ext.P7 it was held
that since the appellant was unqualified for the post of Pump
Operator in the Kerala Water Authority, his provisional
appointment itself was irregular. However, he was directed to be
re-appointed in the post for which he is qualified in pursuance to
Ext.P8 order passed by the Managing Director of the respondent.
It is true that in Ext.P8 it was held that the appellant is appointed
as L.D Clerk in the future arising vacancy with the service benefits
from 23.11.1994, i.e. from his 3rd spell of provisional service. But
that order was rectified by Ext.P17 order dated 26.07.2010 passed
by the Managing Director, making it clear that the re-appointment
and regularisation were with effect from 15.02.2007, i.e. the date
of his joining duty. Ext.P8 order was modified by Ext.P17. By
Ext.P14 order of the Government dated 08.11.1996 minimum
pension was sanctioned to physically handicapped Government
employees with 40% of permanent/partial disability of the upper
or lower extremity deformities, inclusive of the blind, deaf and
dumb having a minimum period of 3 years qualifying service.
WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417
From the date of the re-appointment of the appellant, he is not
having the said period of qualifying service. In view of Exts.P7 and
P17 orders, the appellant cannot claim his provisional service of
appointment as a qualifying period for service benefits. In such
circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
