[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ebanezer Samji vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 31 January, 2026
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
1
2026:KER:7897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2277 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN RP NO.902 OF 2013
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED IN WPC NO.28950 OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
EBANEZER SAMJI,
S/O. ELIAZAR, RESIDING AT 'OLIVE', PALACE LANE,
PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695018, RETIRED
AS CHIEF ENGINEER & SAFETY COMMISSIONER, KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV SHRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
BY ADVS.
SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED
SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2026, ALONG WITH WA.2298/2017, THE COURT ON
31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2
2026:KER:7897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2298 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2017 IN RP
NO.914 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
EBANEZER SAMJI
S/O. ELIZAR, RESIDING AT 'OLIVE', PALACE LANE,
PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 018.RETIRED
AS CHIEF ENGINEER & SAFETY COMMISSIONER, KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV SHRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
004. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
BY ADVS.
SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED
SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2026, ALONG WITH WA.2298/2017, THE COURT ON
31.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
3
2026:KER:7897
JUDGMENT
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,J
The present Writ Appeals are filed under Section 5 of
the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 arise out of the common
judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed in RP Nos.914/2013 and
902/2013 in WP(C) No.28950/2012 whereby the learned Single
Judge has disposed of the Review Petitions as under:
(i) RP No.914/2013 is disposed of
reserving the right of the petitioner to claim re-
computation of the qualifying service on the
basis of Ext.P3, in the event, the BSNL pays the
pro-rata pension to the Kerala State Electricity
Board as contemplated therein.
(ii) RP No. 902/2013 is allowed deleting
that part of the judgment which directs payment
of interest @ 9% of the amount covered by
Ext.P1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
appellant entered the service of the 1 st respondent on
16.02.1982 as Assistant Engineer. After completing service of
more than 29 years, he retired on superannuation, but was not
given pension or terminal benefits including Gratuity,
Terminal Earned Leave Surrender amount etc. Being
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
aggrieved, the appellant herein filed WP(C) No.28950/2012
seeking for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents
to disburse
(a) Full pension taking in to
account the Board Approved P&T
service period also and the Arrears
there to from the date of retirement till
date.
(b) The death cum retirement
gratuity amount due to the petitioner.
(c) Terminal Earned Leave
surrender amount.
Together with interest on all payments due to
the petitioner as on his date of retirement on
31.05.2011 including Last pay paid in March
2012, at the rate of 12% per annum accruing
from 31.05.2011 till date of payment to be paid
within a time limit to be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice."
3. The learned Single Judge while finally
deciding the Writ Petition passed the following order:-
"Petitioner has approached this court
contending that the full pensionery benefits
including DCRG has not been paid to the
petitioner despite the fact that the same was
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
sanctioned by virtue of Ext.P1 as early as on
5.11.2012. No counter affidavit is filed in the
matter.
2. Having regard to the aforesaid
submission made by the petitioner, this writ
petition is only to be allowed. The pensionery
benefits is a statutory right available to any
pensioner and delay in payment of the same
would result in gross injustice. In that view of
the matter I allow writ petition as follows:
3. The respondent Board shall pay to
the petitioner the entire amounts due to him
towards terminal benefits which is computed in
terms of Ext.P1 within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The petitioner shall also be entitled for
interest on the amounts payable @9% per annum
from the date of Ext.P1 till payment."
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated
27.08.2013 in WP(C) No.28950/2012, the appellant herein filed
RP No.914/2013, whereas, the first respondent herein also
filed RP No.902/2013. The learned Single Judge decided both
the RP's vide a common order dated 16.02.2017. The Review
Petition No.914/2013 filed by the appellant was disposed of
reserving the right of the petitioner to claim re-computation
of the qualifying service, in the event the BSNL pays the pro-
rata pension to the KSEB as contemplated therein.
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
4.1. So far as the RP No.902/2013 filed by the KSEB
(the first respondent herein) is concerned, the learned Single
Judge allowed the Review Petition deleting the part of the
judgment which directs payment of interest @ 9% on the
amount covered by Ext.P1. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed
the present Writ Appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the respondents have made the payment
belatedly, after the institution of the Writ Petition (Civil)
which could not have been deemed as timely, and ought not to
have recalled. Therefore, the direction to pay interest @ 9%
per annum could not have been recalled.
5.1. The counsel for the appellant further
contended that the deductions made from the retiral dues of
the appellant, by the respondents, were time barred, and
ought to have directed refund of the same, and restoration of
full pension to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, the
orders passed in Review Petitions deserves to be recalled and
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
set aside. Therefore, these Writ Appeals deserves to be
allowed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents contended that the order passed in the
Review Petitions cannot be recalled inasmuch as the counting
of service rendered by the appellant in the postal department
was not the issue raised in the Writ Petition. However, in case
the service rendered in the P&T/BSNL for computing the
qualifying period of service for pensionary benefits is to be
taken into account, first of all the P&T/BSNL authorities have
to remit pro-rata pension liability. In absence of such
remittance by the P&T/BSNL authorities to the KSEB, the
period cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computing
qualifying period of service for pensionary benefits.
6.1. The learned counsel for the respondents
further contended that, the appellant has not even impleaded
the P&T/BSNL as a party respondent in this case, that is in
these Writ Appeal and also in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
learned Single Judge has not committed any error in disposing
of the Review Petitions and had already granted liberty to the
appellant to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, if
so advised. Thus these Writ Appeals deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
8. In absence of any adjudication with regard to
reckoning of earlier period in P&T/BSNL and in absence of
BSNL being heard, the learned Single Judge rightly granted
liberty to the appellant to avail appropriate remedy. So far as
deletion of the direction to pay interest is concerned, it is not
the fault of the KSEB in not counting the earlier service period
for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for
pensionary benefits. Until and unless the P&T/BSNL
authorities remit pro-rata pension liability for the former
service rendered, the same cannot be reckoned for pensionery
claims in the KSEB.
Accordingly, we do not find any error in the orders
WA No.2298 of 2017 and 2277 of 2017
2026:KER:7897
passed by the learned Single Judge in both the Review
Petitions. The Writ Appeals being bereft of merit and
substance are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Nsd
