STATE OF KERALA Vs. M.PRASANNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This OP had been filed by the State of Kerala and the Commissioner for Rural Development challenging order dated 29/8/2019 in OA No.2737/2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to pass appropriate orders to ensure payment of twice the ex gratia pension payable to a regular employee having 9 years of service along with arrears of pension, to the applicant who was working as an Aaya in a Balawadi. She was appointed provisionally on 22/9/1982 for a period of 179 days. She was sponsored by the employment exchange. She continued to remain in service provisionally for more than 24 years. She attained the age of superannuation on 30/4/2007. Claiming pension, she filed WP(C) No. 13669/2007 which was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.885/2012. Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the OP(KAT) No.126/2020 claim of the applicant for pension based on the judgment in State of Kerala v. M.Daisy (2012 (3) KLT 366). Government rejected her claim as per order dated 13/4/2016 (Annexure A5) stating that she was only a provisional employee. The matter again came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal having observed that the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Daisy's case (supra) holds the field and therefore direction was issued to the Government to pay her the pension.

(2.) The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.B.Vinod while challenging the impugned order submits that the service rendered by the applicant was not a pensionable service and therefore direction to grant ex gratia pension cannot be sustained. Apparently the applicant as well as the Tribunal had placed emphasis on the Full Bench judgment in WA No. 631/2009. The Full Bench having taken note of the Government Order dated 18/9/1999 and the subsequent modifications thereof observed that the said Government Order cannot be pressed into service or relied upon to direct the Government to pay ex gratia pension to the respondent. It is also the finding of the Full Bench that the respondent was not appointed on a regular basis. Having found OP(KAT) No.126/2020 so, it was held that she was appointed on a provisional basis on 6/10/1982 after a process of selection through employment exchange and continued to serve the department without break and therefore, she cannot be denied the benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was also held that the respondent was appointed after her name was sponsored by the Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Neyyatinkara and she had undergone a process of selection. She was also qualified to be appointed as IInd Grade Draftsman. Finally, having found that there are no provision which enables the respondent to get pension, for the sole reason that she continued in service until she attained the age of 55 years, the Full Bench observed that "the Government should relax the rigor of the rules and sanction and disburse pension to the petitioner taking cue from the stipulations in the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme introduced as per GO(P) No.1851/1999/Fin dated 18/9/1999". Thereafter it is held as under:-

(3.) Apparently, the judgment of the Full Bench cannot be treated as a precedent, as it does not lay down any law as such. The finding of the Full Bench is that she was not eligible for pension as per the Rules. But taking note of the special circumstances, direction was issued to pay her double the ex- gratia pension.