High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions to re-fix the petit...

P.K. Vinayan v. Kerala Water Authority

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 32129 of 2014 (M)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Asha
Judgment Date
2017-12-12
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed. The petitioner’s pension is to be re-fixed by counting the Government Service from 02.01.1984 to 23.12.1986 along with his service in the Kerala Water Authority, with any necessary adjustments, and complete within three months from the copy of the judgment. Pro-rata pension need not be paid in view of the criteria discussed in Mohammed Basheer’s case and the Rule 20 Note.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions to re-fix the petitioner’s pension by including prior government service within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.K. Vinayan

Respondents

  • Kerala Water Authority
  • State of Kerala
  • District Soil Conservation Officer, Ernakulam
  • Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, PeerumedU
  • Block Development Officer, South Vazhaakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair
  • • S.S. Srinath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. George Mathew (Senior Counsel)
  • • P. Benjamin Paul (Senior Counsel)
  • • Nisha Bose (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P.K. Vinayan, retired as Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, challenges Ext.P6, which rejected his plea to reckon his pre-Kerala Water Authority government service (02.01.1984 to 23.12.1986) for pensionary benefits. He had earlier served as Draftsman Grade-I in the District Soil Conservation Office (1984–1985), in the Public Works Department (1985–1985/86), and in the Block Development Office, South Vazhakulam (1985–1986) before joining the Kerala Water Authority on 23.12.1986. Relying on Exts.P2 and P3 (orders dated 27.10.1999), he contends that government service should be counted for pension, as has been done in similar cases. He cites Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of Kerala (ILR 2015 (1) Ker 10) and Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015, arguing that the benefit of Government orders under Rule 11 of Part III Kerala Service Rules should not be overridden by the Note under Rule 20. The respondents submit that prior government service cannot be counted for autonomous/public sector pensions, citing Government letter 1826/B3/12/WRD (2012). The court examines Rule 11 and Rule 20 of Part III KSR, relevant GO orders, and the judgments, ultimately allowing the petition by reconciling prior service with KWA service. It notes that pro-rata pension is not required per the 2009 note, and directs re-fixation of pension within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 11 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, 1956Rule 20 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, 1956Part III Kerala Service Rules, 1956G.O.(P) No.369/87/Fin dated 31.03.1987G.O.(P) No.228/2001/Fin dated 2.2.2001G.O.(P) No. 517/09/Fin dated 19.11.2009Note under Rule 20

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that his service in the Government prior to joining the Kerala Water Authority (02.01.1984 to 23.12.1986) must be reckoned for pension fixation. He relied on Exts.P2 and P3 (27.10.1999 orders) and on Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of Kerala (ILR 2015 (1) Ker 10) and Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015, contending that Rule 11 of Part III KSR and related GO orders permit counting such service toward pension, and that the Note under Rule 20 does not bar this reckoning or require pro-rata payment. He sought re-fixation of his pension accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that prior government service cannot be counted for pension for employees of autonomous/public sector undertakings, citing Government letter No.1826/B3/12/WRD dated 24.09.2012. They argued Rule 20’s Note and the absence of a direct rule authorising such reckonment, emphasizing the separation between government service and autonomous bodies for pension purposes.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of KeralaILR 2015 (1) Ker 10PositiveCited to support counting prior government service toward pension and to justify non-payment of pro-rata pension under the Rule 20 Note.
Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015Writ Appeal No. 2556 of 2015PositiveDivision Bench held prior government service could be counted toward pension along with KWA service, reinforcing the petitioner's claim.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.K. Vinayan v. Kerala Water Authority and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 32129 of 2014 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **----------** **P.K. VINAYAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SRI.KOCHIKKA, KRISHNA KRIPA, BEERAKUTTY ROAD, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682024, (EX-P.A. TO SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), P.H.CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR).** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.S.S.SRINATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **-----------** - **1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## ***ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED:** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 THE DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.** - **4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PEERUMEDU-685531.** - **5 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683105.** - ***ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.11.2017 IN IA.18470/2017** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **WP(C).No. 32129 of 2014 (M) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**EXHIBIT-P1:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 24.8.1988.**| |**EXHIBIT-P2:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/E4/JB/15149/98 DATED 27.10.1999.**| |**EXHIBIT-P3:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID G.O.(P) NO.452/06/FIN DATED**| ||**6.11.2006.**| |**EXHIBIT-P4:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/AO(ESTT)/PEN.7577/1692**| ||**DATED 10/2012.**| |**EXHIBIT-P5:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.7.2014.**| |**EXHIBIT-P6:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/AO(ESTT)/PEN.7577/4165**| ||**DATED 16.9.2014.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL** ## **P.V. ASHA, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** _Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2017_ ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who retired from service as Executive Engineer from the Kerala Water Authority on 31.07.2012 has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 and praying for a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pensionary benefits reckoning the service rendered by him under the Government for the period from 02.01.1984 to 23.12.1986 prior to his joining duty in the Kerala Water Authority. 2. The petitioner was working as a Draftsman Grade-I in the District Soil Conservation Office, Ernakulam for the period from 02.01.1984 to 14.03.1985 and in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department for the period from 15.03.1985 to 03.02.1985 and in Block Development Office, Vazhakulam, for the period from 04.12.1985 to 23.12.1986. He joined as Assistant Engineer in Kerala ## **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** ## **-: 2 :-** Water Authority on 23.12.1986. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the orders issued as per Exts.P2 and P3 on 27.10.1999, his service under the Government was reckoned for the purpose of service benefits. 3. In order to get the service rendered under government counted for his pensionary benefits, he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 1[st] respondent. It was rejected as per Ext.P6 letter dated 16.09.2014 saying that there are no rules/orders to reckon the prior service under State Public Sector Undertaking along with State service and vice versa for the purpose of pension. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that as per Government letter No.1826/B3/12/WRD dated 24.09.2012, the prior service in Government Department cannot be reckoned for granting benefits to the employees of the autonomous/statutory organisation and vice versa. 5. The petitioner points out that several persons **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** **-: 3 :-** similarly situated like him has got the service rendered by them under Government Departments reckoned for fixing their pension, along with their service in Kerala Water Authority as well as in other Public Sector Undertakings. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of Kerala**_ [ILR 2015 (1) Ker 10] as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015. In _**Mohamed Basheer's** case (Supra)_ the Division Bench was considering the cases of government employees for reckoning their previous service in KSRTC/Khadi and Village Industries Board for computing their pensionary benefits. After considering the provisions contained in Rules 11, 20 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, 1956 _(hereinafter referred to as 'KSR')_ and various government orders, it was held that the the benefit of the orders issued by Government in G.O.(P) No.369/87/Fin dated 31.03.1987 and G.O.(P) **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** ## **-: 4 :-** No.228/2001/Fin dated 2.2.2001, issued in terms of Rule 11 of Part III KSR, providing for reckoning the service rendered by the employees under state Government/state autonomous bodies on their absorption under autonomous bodies/state government for pensionary benefits cannot be taken away by way of the Note introduced in Rule 20, which is totally unconnected with other provisions in Rule 20. At the same time it was held that it is not necessary to make payment of pro-rata pension in view of the Note under Rule 20 introduced as per G.O.(P) No. 517/09/Fin dated 19.11.2009. By that order it is ordered that such payment is no longer necessary. 7. Similarly, Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015 filed by the Government was a case where a 1[st] grade Draftsman of the Kerala Water Authority had claimed pension reckoning his service in Public Works Department rendered prior to the joining in Kerala Water Authority. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition No.18319 of 2009, directing to reckon the said service ## **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** ## **-: 5 :-** along with his regular service in Kerala Water Authority. The Writ Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed repelling the contentions of the respondents that the previous service rendered under Government cannot be counted. In the light of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.2556 of 2015 in which Kerala Water Authority is a party, the case of the petitioner is also liable to be allowed. The petitioner, would therefore be entitled to get his pension re-fixed after reckoning the service rendered by him under the Government of Kerala for the period from 02.01.1984 to 23.12.1986 also. Even though there was a direction to remit the pro-rata pension, I find that in view of the judgment in _**Mohamed Basheer'**_ s _case (Supra)_ , it is not necessary to collect the pro-rata pension from the previous employer. 8. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to see that the petitioner's pension is re-fixed accordingly and the entire benefits are granted **W.P.(C) No.32129 of 2014(M)** ## **-: 6 :-** to him, after re-fixing his pension counting the service rendered in Government Departments within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **P.V. ASHA** **JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge