Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


THACHOLI BHASKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 24395 of 2001(D) [2006] RD-KL 3481 (14 December 2006)


OP No. 24395 of 2001(D)

... Petitioner


... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR


The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :14/12/2006


S. Siri Jagan, J.
O.P. No. 24395 of 2001
Dated this, the 14th December, 2006.


Petitioner was originally appointed as a Chainman in the office of the Special Tahsildar (LA), Koyilandi, from 10-2-1966 onwards on daily rated basis. By G.O(MS) No. 1120/72 dated 17-11-1972, daily rated Chainman, who had one year continuous service, has been absorbed on regular basis. 61 daily rated Chainmen were so absorbed, but, there were still 37 persons similarly situated, one of whom was the petitioner. After a spate of litigation, by G.O(MS) No. 460/86 dated 20-5-2986, the petitioner and others were also absorbed into regular service. Ext. P1 is a copy of that order. Later on, by Ext. P2 dated 25-9-1989, absorption was given retrospective effect from 17-11-1972. But, this period from 17-11-1972 was not continuous since there were broken periods of service in between. The question arose as to how this broken periods have to be reckoned. By Ext. P3 order dated 13-11-1990, the Government directed that the off-duty period of 37 daily rated Chainmen whose list is appended to Ext. P3, one of whom is the petitioner at Sl. No. 37, would be regularised by granting them eligible leave for the period mentioned therein. The complaint of the petitioner in this case is that despite Ext. P3 order, the service of the petitioner from 17-11-1972 has not been reckoned for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits. The petitioner submits that this has been on the basis of Ext. P4 letter from the Government which stated that on the basis of Ext. P3 order, although the off duty period has been regularised, no benefits including pension would be given for the said period. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the respondents to compute and fix superannuation pension of the petitioner by reckoning the entire service to his credit commencing from 17-11-1972 onwards and O.P. No. 24395/2001. -: 2 :- ending on his retirement on 31-3-2001.

2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which the stand taken in Ext. P4 has been reiterated. According to the 3rd respondent, Ext. P3 would not have the effect of reckoning the broken periods for the purpose of pension. According to to them, since the petitioner had regular service only from 1995 onwards, he is entitled to pension from 31-7-1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earlier when the petitioner filed O.P.No. 2520/2001 claiming the benefit of continuing up to 60 years of age on the basis of Rule 60(b) of Part I of KSR, although his claim was not allowed in that original petition, the respondents themselves had taken a stand that the petitioner's regular service starts from 17-11-1972 to prove that the petitioner was not in service as on 7-4-1970, which alone would entitle the petitioner for continuing up to 60 years of age.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. I am at a complete loss to understand the stand of the Government. Admittedly, by Ext. P3 Government Order, petitioner's broken service from 17-11-1972 to the date of his regular absorption was regularised by granting him eligible leave for the periods of broken service. The only benefit the petitioner would get out of Ext. P3 is computation of that period for the purpose of pension and not for any other benefits whatsoever. Therefore, after issuing Ext. P3 order regularising the broken periods also with effect from 17-11- 1972, there is absolutely no meaning in contending that for the purpose of computing pension, that period would not be reckoned. According to me, that is an absurd stand. When the only benefit the petitioner would get out of Ext. P3 is reckoning of that period for the purpose of pension, the only interpretation on Ext. P3 could be that O.P. No. 24395/2001. -: 3 :- the broken periods from 17-11-1972 would also be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pension of the petitioner. I am also supported in this view by the stand taken by the respondents themselves in O.P. No. 2520/2001 in which this Court has passed Ext. P5 judgment. In that case, the Government themselves have taken a contention that the the petitioner's continuous service started from 17-11-1972 for the purpose of proving that he was not in service on 7-4-1970. As such, Government is estopped from taking a different contention now for another purpose. In the above circumstances, I allow this original petition and direct the respondents to compute and fix the superannuation pension of the petitioner by reckoning the entire service to his credit commencing from 17-11-1972 onwards ending with his retirement on 31-3-2001. The computation shall be made and arrears of retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.