Introduction:
The complainant made claim for pensionary benefits by taking into consideration and reckoning the service 10 times rendered by the complainant in the Telecom Department which was served under the Central Government.
Facts:
- The complainant worked as a Technician in the Telecom Department during the period05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984. The complainant later joined as a Mastermind in Steel Diligence Limited, Kerala (for short ‘SILK’) on 04.06.1984.
- The said SILK is a Public Sector Undertaking (for short ‘PSU’) possessed by the Government of Kerala. He worked there till 31.05.1987. Posterior thereto, through the Public Service Commission, the complainant joined the Technical Education Department on 31.05.1987.
- He served about 19 times and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.06.2006.
Contentions of Appellant:
Mr. P. V. Surendranath learned elderly counsel for the complainant made claim for the pensionary benefits by taking into consideration and reckoning the service 10 times rendered by the complainant between 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 in the Telecom Department which was served under the Central Government.
Contentions of Respondent:
Mr. C.K. Sasi learned counsel for the repliers has appertained to Rule 29, Part III KSR to contend that the Rule is categorical that the benefit of one service will stand dropped if the break between the two movables exceeds the joining time admissible under the service Rule.
The High Court was justified in holding that the complainant had retired on 30.06.2006, while the Government Order is dated 24.09.2014 and as similar cannot be made applicable retrospectively.
Principles and observation of the Court-
the observation of the High Court that the complainant is free to move the Central Government if he has a case that his service in the Telecom Department is liable to be reckoned isn’t justified.
However, also the entire relief would be available at the hands of the State Government If the break in service is blinked as sought by the complainant.
Thus, the solitary questionable question for consideration in the instant case is, as to whether the break in service interposing the service rendered in Telecom Department and the Technical Education Department is pardonable.
Judgment:
As per Rule 29 (a) Part III Kerala Service Rules, the abdication of the Public Service or redundancy or junking from it, entails a penalty of one service. As per Rule 29 (b), the resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment in the service in which counts isn’t abdication from public service and the break between two movables shouldn’t exceed the joining time permissible under the service rules plus public leaves.
Several requests have been entered in the Government to reckon the previous qualifying service for pension after blinking the nonqualifying squeezed service as a break without penalty of one service.
The government has examined the matter in detail and is pleased to order that the previous public service shall be reckoned as a qualifying service for pension after blinking the squeezed nonqualifying service as the gap between the two services.
Opinion :
in my opinion, the benefit of reckoning the before pensionable service between the Central Government and State Government was handed, it was subject to remitting the commensurate pro rata pensionary liability on service share base between the two employers.
Judgment Name: Valsan P. vs The State of Kerala and Others
Judgment date: October 21, 2021
Judges/ bench: M.R. Shah, J, and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Written By: Nazmin Shaikh (4th year BLS LLB)
College: Children Welfare Centre Law College, Mumbai.