Kerala High Court
Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs K.Chandran Pillai on 7 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 195
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.129 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38263/2017(G) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE WPC:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM,
2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WPC:
1 K.CHANDRAN PILLAI,
S/O R.KUNJUKRISHNAN PILLAI, LECTURER SELECTION
GRADE (RTD) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DEVASWOM
BOARD COLLECTE, SASTHAMCOTTA,RESIDING AT
ANJALI,KAKKAKUNNU P.O.SOORANADU SOUTH,
KOLLAM-690522.
WA No.129/19
-:2:-
2 THE PRINCIPAL,
DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGE,SASTHAMCOTTA-690521.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEF
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.129/19
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2020 Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment dated 9/4/2018 in WP(C) No. 38263/17. The writ petition was filed inter alia seeking for a direction to provide the petitioner the pensionary benefits taking into account his service in the Food Corporation of India from 17/11/1976 to 11/3/1982 along with his service in an Aided College. In fact, the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition as WP(C) No. 10323/2008, which was later rejected by judgment dated 31/3/2010. Petitioner preferred WA No.1252/2010 and the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 30/7/2015 allowed the writ petition setting aside Exts.P3 and P6 in the said case and respondents were directed to pass consequential orders reckoning prior service of the appellant. The Division Bench also placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Haridasan [(2015 (2) KLT 145 (FB)]. The contention urged by the petitioner was that even after WA No.129/19 -:4:- passing a judgment, the same was not being implemented. It is in the said background that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment directed the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioner reckoning his earlier service in the Food Corporation of India and to provide him the benefits payable within 3 months.
2. Learned Government Pleader while impugning the aforesaid judgment submits that as per Note 2 to Rule 11 of Part III KSR, when the petitioner retired from service, there was a stipulation that in case of employees who left former service in Central Public Sector Undertakings, the benefit of reckoning previous service will be available only if the former employer remits share of proportionate pro-rata pension liability on a service share basis. Of course, it might be true that it is possible for the Government to take such a contention, but the fact remains that such an issue cannot be considered in the present appeal in so far as rights of the petitioner had been concluded by judgment in WA No.1252/2010. In the earlier round of litigation, the Government did not take such a contention. The same issue cannot be raked up and hence is barred by the principle of WA No.129/19 -:5:- constructive res judicata.
In the said circumstances, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge