High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-29Writ Petition dismissed.

P.V. Anthony (Technician Grade-II, Retired) v. State of Kerala and Cochin University of Science and Technology

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 22968 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No relief is granted to count the prior service for pension.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. Anthony (Technician Grade-II, Retired)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
Cochin University of Science and Technology represented by its Registrar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Jaju Babu
• Smt. M. U. Vijayalakshmi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. P. Aravindakshan Pillai, SC
• GP Sri. Jimmy George

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition seeks counting of past service for pension from Hindustan Paper Corporation while the petitioner served as Fitter/Technician Grade-II at Cochin University from 1984 until retirement. The record shows the petitioner had prior employment from 28.11.1981 to 10.03.1984. He submitted Ext.P2 on 15.07.2010 requesting that that service be reckoned for pensionary benefits, with CPF transferred to the University (Ext.P3). Correspondence from University departments (Exts.P4–P8) shows attempts to grant the relief, but no action was taken. The University rejected the relief, arguing that GO(P) 212/09/Fin dated 03.06.2009 forbids counting pre-government/public sector service for pension, since there is no mechanism for sharing pension liability between Central Government and CPSEs. Counsel relied on Jayakumar S v State of Kerala (Full Bench) to support the proposition that service in statutory corporations and autonomous bodies disbursed from local funds would not qualify for pension, except under special government orders. The petitioner argued that prior decisions of the Syndicate (Ext.P9) and orders (Ext.P10, Ext.P11) granted similar relief to others and that RTI responses (Ext.P16(2)) indicate government orders were not implemented in the University. The Single Judge did not accept the petition, noting lack of reciprocal arrangements and the absence of clear rules. The petition is dismissed with no relief to the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

GO(P) 212/09/Fin dated 3.6.2009Note 2 below Rule II, Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSRs)Kerala Service Rules (KSRs)Right to Information Act (RTI Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that prior service in Hindustan Paper Corporation (1981–1984) ought to be reckonable for pension in the University service, supported by Exts. P9–P11 (Syndicate decisions and orders) and correspondence showing attempts to grant relief. He notes transfer of the Contributory Provident Fund and RTI responses indicating non-implementation of government orders in the University. The argument relies on government orders admitting prior service reckonment for pension, and he urges that the University’s reliance on GO(P) 212/09/Fin to deny relief is misplaced, especially in light of precedents granting similar relief to others.

Contentions of Respondents

The University argues that GO(P) No. 212/09/Fin (3.6.2009) states there are no rules on the Central side permitting sharing of pension liability between the Central Government and CPSEs; thus previous service cannot be counted with Central Government service. It invokes the Full Bench decision in Jayakumar S v. State of Kerala (2021(5) KHC 157) to contend that service in statutory corporations or autonomous bodies, when paid from local funds, would not qualify for pension except under special government orders. It maintains there is no reciprocal agreement with Hindustan Paper Corporation, and no central scheme to count such service. Exts. P9–P11 show past relief was granted in some cases, but the University asserts those were exceptional or not applicable here, and the RTI response (Ext. P16(2)) indicates government orders were not implemented in the University.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jayakumar S v. State of Kerala	2021(5) KHC 157	Positive	The Full Bench decision is cited and followed to support the proposition that service in statutory corporations/autonomous bodies paid from local funds would not qualify for pension, except under special government orders.

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.V. Anthony (Technician Grade-II, Retired) v. State of Kerala and Cochin University of Science and Technology 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 MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** P.V. ANTHONY TECHNICIAN GRADE-II (RETIRED), DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MUKKANNUR, ANGAMALY(VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2021) The petitioner before joining the service of the 2[nd] respondent i.e, Cochin University of Science and Technology as Fitter/Technician grade II on 12.3.1984, had been working as Junior Artisan/Fitter in Hindustan Paper Corporation with effect from 28.11.1981 to 10.3.1984 as evident from Ext.P1. While working with Cochin University, the petitioner superannuated on 30.6.2012. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.7.2010 (Ext.P2), to count his past service for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits to the respondent university. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the time when the petitioner joined the 2[nd] respondent University, the past service was permitted to be counted for the purpose of pension. On appointment with the 2[nd] respondent University, the amount in the Contributory Provident Fund from Hindustan Paper Corporation was transferred to the 2[nd] respondent **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -3- University. Certain correspondence had taken place between the departments of university for the purpose of granting benefits, but, no action was taken. Thereafter, the impugned communication was issued denying the aforementioned relief. The said order denying the relief is not sustainable on the ground that it has been issued without considering the claim of the petitioner based upon the decision dated 5.8.1989 of the Syndicate of the University (Ext.P9), order dated 29.1.1999 (Ext.P10) and order dated 8.9.2000 (Ext.P11) granting the same kind of relief to other staff. A request under the RTI Act dated 14.6.2013 was submitted to the Registrar regarding the compliance of the Government orders which would benefit the petitioner for the purpose of counting the past service and the same was replied vide communication dated 26.6.2013 (Ext.P16(2)) stating that the Government orders were not implemented in the University and prior service of employees was reckoned considering the Government orders. It is in that aspect, the respondent did not grant the relief. **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -4- 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university countered the aforementioned argument by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the pension by counting the prior service in view of the G.O. (P) No.212/09/Fin. dated 3.6.2009 (Ext.R2(A)), wherein it was specifically mentioned that there are no rules on Central side permitting to share proportionate pension liability between Central Government and Central Public Sector Undertakings and therefore, previous service in Public Sector Undertakings shall not be counted for pensionary benefits along with Central Government Service. In support of the argument, the counsel had relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in J **ayakumar S v. State of Kerala** [2021(5) KHC 157], wherein in paragraph No.13, it was held that the service rendered in statutory corporations and autonomous bodies, the pay, disbursed from the local fund, would not qualify for pension, except under special orders of the Government. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -5- ## clause 2 of Ext.R2(A). “As per the Government Orders read above, Government have ordered that the employees of State Government Departments who left the former service in Central Government / Central Public Sector Undertakings on their own volition for taking up appointments in State Government Departments will be allowed to reckon their prior service for all pensionary benefits along with the service in the State Government Departments, subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, this provision has also been incorporated in Note 2 below rule II, Part III, KSRs. 2. In the letter read 3[rd] above, Accountant General had pointed out that there are no rules on Central side permitting to share proportionate pension liability between Central Government and Central Public Sector Undertakings and hence the previous service in Public Sector Undertakings is not counted for pensionary benefits along with Central Government service.” 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner prior to joining the service with the respondent University had rendered service from 28.11.1981 to 10.3.1984 as Junior Artisan/Fitter in the Hindustan Paper Corporation. There is **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -6- no reciprocal agreement with that employer which provide for considering the service benefits for the purpose of pension. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has no merit. I do not find any fallacy or arbitrariness in rejection of the claim as order has been passed in most rationale and plausible manner. No interference is made out. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE** . dl/ **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -7- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22968/2013** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.HNL/PER/1208/4208 DTD.10.3.1984 ISSUED BY HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.15.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.G2/PRIOR SERVICE RECKONING/2010 DTD.16.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.G2/PRIOR SERVICE RECKONING/2010 DTD.23.6.2011 BY THE REGISTRAR ADDRESSED TO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(FINANCE). EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.52623/PEN. B1/11/ FIN DTD.22.7.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(FINANCE). EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.G2/PRIOR SERVICE RECKONING/2010 DTD.8.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTERS NO.80402/PEN. B1/11/FIN. DTD.22.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTERS NO.80402/PEN. B1/11/FIN. DTD.2.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION DTD.5.8.1989 OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY. **WP(C) NO. 22968 OF 2013** -8- - EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.D2/13673/94 DTD.29.1.1999 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.D1/250(1)/78, DTD.8.9.2000 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE APPEALS DTD.22.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER (FINANCE). - EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE APPEALS DTD.12.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER (FINANCE). - EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE REPLY NO.35349/PEN.B1/12/FIN DTD.11.6.2012 OF 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AD.G2/PRIOR SERVICE RECKONING/2010 DTD.31.5.2013 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.14.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH REPLY NO.AD.G2/010881/RTI/2013 DTD.26.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) : A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) 212/09/FIN DATED 3.6.2009 ISSUED BY 1[ST] RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2(B): A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.703/2002/ FIN DATED 12.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT.