Kerala High Court
P.Santhakumary vs State Of Kerala on 10 August, 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2017/1ST JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 2289 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.SANTHAKUMARY,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI),
RETIRED FROM HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, PUNALUR (AIDED),
RESIDING AT MANALADIVILA, AIKKARAKONAM,
KAKKOD P.O., PUNALUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
PUNALUR-691305.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
KOLLAM-691001.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SKG
WP(C).No. 2289 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
6. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT SUB TREASURY,
PUNALUR-691305.
7. THE HEADMASTER,
HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS,
PUNALUR-691305.
R1-R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 2289 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NO.36011/E1/98/G.EDN.DATED
10-8-1998.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PENSION
BOOK ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E)
KERALA, SANCTIONING EX-GRATIA PENSION FROM
1-10-1999.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2011 (2) ILR KERALA
PAGE 846.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.2289 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2017
JUDGMENT
1.This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i. to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records leading up to Exhibit P3 and quash Exhibit P1. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner treating her pensionable service as 16 years, reckoning the period during which she has kept out of her employment due to division fall and to pay the arrears of pensions with 12% interest."
2.The contention of the petitioner is that though she was appointed as H.S.A. (Hindi) in the 7th respondent's school on 18.08.1981 in the leave vacancy and subsequently appointed against regular vacancy on 15.06.1992, she was thrown out due to division fall on 15.07.1983. She was later appointed in a regular vacancy which arose in the school on 01.06.1992 and retired on superannuation on 31.03.1998. She therefore had only a total of 7 years 2 months and 15 days qualifying service and request for regular pension was therefore rejected by W.P.(C).No.2289/12 2 Exhibit P1. Ex gratia pension was however granted to her. The petitioner seeks grant of regular pension reckoning the earlier period of service put in by her from 1981 onwards.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent contending that the petitioner had only 7 years of total qualifying service and that all the periods of service for pension have been reckoned while granting ex gratia pension. The petitioner did not have the necessary service for grant of full pension.
5.The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3 judgment to contend that the period during which she had remained out of service also is liable to be counted as qualifying service.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent that W.P.(C).No.2289/12 3 all the periods of interrupted service have been counted for reckoning the qualifying service due to the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioner's grievance is to be considered by the Government. In case the petitioner prefers a representation before the 1st respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, seeking directions for reckoning the period of break in service also as qualifying service, the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent and orders passed thereon within a period of three months thereafter.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj22/5