[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala Water Authority vs Daisy P.T on 14 January, 2026
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
1
2026:KER:2411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2015 IN WPC NO.2087 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033
BY ADV SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY, SC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DAISY P.T., SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL
DIVISION EAST, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THRISSUR-680004
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2
2026:KER:2411
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 20.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No.
2087 of 2012, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by quashing Ext. P7 and directing the appellant to remit the pro-
rata pension contribution, in respect of the service rendered by the first
respondent, to the Kerala State Electricity Board Staff Pension Fund
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2. The first respondent/petitioner herein had filed the writ
petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Ext. P7 letter No. KWA/HO/E10/2495/2011 dated 23-
8-2011 as it is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory;
ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 3rd
respondent to remit pro-rata pension contribution in respect of the
service rendered by the Petitioner in the Kerala State Electricity Board
Staff Pension Fund;
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2026:KER:2411
iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd
respondent to reckon the service rendered by the Petitioner in Kerala
Water Authority for weightage and pensionery benefits in K.S.E.B.,
iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed
just and necessary in the circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case are that, prior to joining the Kerala
State Electricity Board, the first respondent was working as a Lower
Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority. She was appointed as
Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority on 18.04.1992, as
advised by the Public Service Commission. She continued in service with
the Kerala Water Authority until 17.01.1994 and, on the very same day,
joined the Kerala State Electricity Board without any break in service.
The Kerala State Electricity Board had decided to reckon the service
rendered by a Board employee in a State Government Department or
quasi-Government organisation prior to her appointment or absorption
in the Kerala State Electricity Board as qualifying service for the purpose
of sanctioning pensionary benefits under the Board. 3.1 The first
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2026:KER:2411
respondent submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, Kerala
State Electricity Board, requesting that her previous service in the
Kerala Water Authority be reckoned for the purpose of computing
pension and weightage. Subsequently, the said representation was
considered and decided vide Ext. P1, whereby a clarification was issued
stating that an employee having qualifying service of less than five years
would be eligible only for service gratuity, calculated at the rate of one
month's pay for each year of qualifying service. It was further clarified
that where the qualifying service is less than ten years, the employee
would not be entitled to pension, but only to service gratuity and Death-
cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), based on the length of qualifying
service. The pro-rata pension liability was required to be remitted in
lump sum as a one-time payment and was to be determined with
reference to the computation table laid down in Part III of the Kerala
Service Rules.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the first respondent submitted Ext. P6
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2026:KER:2411
representation to the Kerala Water Authority/the appellant, requesting
the remittance of the pro-rata pension liability to the Kerala State
Electricity Board Staff Pension Fund. However, the appellant, vide Ext.
P7 letter, stated that there was no order or rule permitting the reckoning
of prior service in a Public Sector Undertaking along with State service,
or vice versa, for the purpose of pension. Consequently, the request for
remittance of the pro-rata pension contribution was rejected. Aggrieved
thereby, the first respondent filed the writ petition.
3.3 The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and relying
on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and
others1, allowed the writ petition by quashing Ext. P7 and directing the
appellant to remit the pro-rata pension contribution, in respect of the
service rendered by the first respondent, to the Kerala State Electricity
Board Staff Pension Fund at the earliest and, in any event, within three
2015 (1) ILR 10
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2026:KER:2411
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the law
laid down in Mohammed Basheer (supra) is no longer good law in the
light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jayakumar S and others
v. State of Kerala and others2, wherein a similar question arose as to
whether prior service rendered in the Kerala Water Authority is liable to
be reckoned as qualifying service in view of Section 19(1) of the Kerala
Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. The Full Bench held that the
benefit granted under Section 19(1) to erstwhile employees who had
later opted to join Government service cannot, under any circumstances,
be extended. The Full Bench thus overruled the decision in Mohammed
Basheer (supra). Therefore, it was contended that the present appeal
deserves to be allowed.
5. None appears for the respondents, even though notice has
2021 (5) KHC 157
WA NO. 1861 OF 2016
2026:KER:2411
been duly served. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the Full Bench judgment in Jayakumar S. (supra).
6. The Full Bench of this Court has laid down the correct
position of law and has overruled the judgment in Mohammed Basheer
(supra). In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that
the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the
judgment dated 20.11.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2087 of 2012 is hereby
set aside.
The writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs. All
Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jjj
