Case Type: Civil
Case No: Original Petition No. 16656 Of 1994
Petitioner: C.P.Balakrishna Pillai
Respondent: Asst. Executive Engineer
Bench: K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
Statutes Referred: Industrial Disputes Act.
Facts:
The petitioner was appointed on provisional basis under R.9(a)(1) of the overall Rules partially II of KS & SSR on 25.5.1982. His appointment was for a period of 179 days.
He filed O.P. No. 8883/82 seeking the advantage of Chapter V-A of the economic Disputes Act. supported the complete Bench decision in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 829) his original Petition was disposed of with the direction that termination of his temporary service will need to be governed by Chapter V-A of the economic Disputes Act, except in fact thus far as could also be necessary to accommodate those advised by the general public Service Commission. Ext. P1 is that the judgment.
Issues Involved:
The issue raised during this Original Petition is whether or not a short lived Government servant appointed under R.9(a)(1) of the overall Rules partially II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules is entitled to pensionary benefits, including monthly pension, commuted value of pension and death cum retirement gratuity, on his retirement on superannuation at the age of 55 years, if he had quite 10 years of service to his credit. As per R.57 of Part III KSR persons with minimum service of 10 years service are entitled to pension.
Observations/Obiter Dicta:
In that case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the Government for 181/2 years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on March 7, 1980 after serving the Government for 181/2 years (more than 10 years as permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be finalised within 6 months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date of retirement”.
That decision was with reference to the particular facts of the case and deeming him to be a permanent employee.
Rationale:
Here the petitioner was appointed totally on temporary basis and continued on temporary basis. His appointment was otherwise than in accordance with the principles. He wasn’t a daily appointee. The scheme of R.9 of the overall rules partially II of the KS & SR contemplates that a short lived appointee won’t be a probationer which he shall as soon as get replaced by a member of service. B an amendment temporary employees are denied increments.
They’re going to not be allowed to be continued beyond 180 days. They’re going to be entitled just for a minimum pay as per R.9 (a)(v) subject to the reasons within the proviso thereto Rule.
Within the last proviso, it’s made clear that the service of a provisional appointee shall not be regularised unless he satisfies the conditions prescribed in Sub Rule (b) of R.10. Thus, the petitioner wasn’t in the least entitled for any regularisation.
Judgement:
Interns of this provision, a temporary appointee cannot claim pension unless Government specify in that behalf. The counsel for the petitioner could not bring to my notice any specific order conferring the benefit of pension to temporary employees appointed under R.9 mentioned in the said note.
At the same time, R.4 of Part III KSR concerning pension specifically provides mat no claim to pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for limited time only. The petitioners appointment was for a limited time namely, 180 days. He happened to be continued in service on the strength of Ext. P1 judgment. Inspite of Ext. P1 judgment, also in terms of S.4 of the Public Service Act introduced later, the petitioners service could have been terminated, but it was not done:
So in terms of R.4(a) of Part III KSR, as the petitioner was appointed for a limited term only, he cannot claim pension, even though he had continued beyond that time. As per Clause (c) of R.4, when a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages also claim for pension cannot be admitted. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary person paid on monthly basis.
Thus, in terms of that clause as well, the petitioners claim is inadmissible. Thus, there is specific provision excluding temporary appointees from the purview of Pension Rules. Over and above that, the note under R.3 Part IKSR also exclude temporary employees from the purview of the application of the Kerala Service Rules. This is except to the extension specified by the Government.
Government have not made any specification. On the other hand, the provisions in Rule 4 in Part III of the KSR are the specification excluding them from the purview of the Pension Rules.
In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot get a direction for grant of retirement benefits in the light of the specific provisions contained in KSR. The decisions cited by the Petitioner cannot be relied on to grant him any pension considering his long temporary service.
In the above circumstances, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.
Conclusion:
The provisions in Rule 4 partially III of the KSR are the specification excluding them from the purview of the Pension Rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot get a direction for grant of retirement benefits within the light of the precise provisions contained in KSR. The choices cited by the Petitioner can’t be relied on to grant him any pension considering his long temporary service.