P.K. LALITHABAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings Ext.P11 to the extent to which the minimum pension is sanctioned to the petitioner only with effect from the date of the said order. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner retired from service on 30/06/1999. In fact, she had certain periods of broken service which was ordered to be regularized by the Government as per Ext.P2. The relevant facts leading to the same show that in Ext.P1, the Government ordered that all aided school regular teachers who did not complete seven years of service on or before 15/07/1995 and who were not in service as on 14/07/1996 will be given protection and they will be absorbed in the future vacancies arising under the respective Management. The petitioner had only a total service of 8 years 5 months and 8 days till her retirement on 30/06/1999. Seeking the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order, she filed a representation before the first respondent and by Ext.P2, the Government directed the District Educational Officer to take necessary steps to regularize the broken service and to forward the request of the petitioner seeking minimum family pension, to the Government. Since no action was taken in the matter, the petitioner filed O.P.No.7637/2002 and, this Court by Ext.P3 Judgment issued a direction to the Government to take appropriate action. Thereafter, by Ext.P4, the District Educational Officer ordered that the retrenched period of service of the petitioner from 14/07/1995 to 21/01/1996 and from 26/03/1996 to 01/06/1997 stands regularized as Leave Without Allowance subject to the condition that the afore mentioned period will not count for any service benefits. This led to another round of litigation. Ext.P7 is a Judgment in W.P.(C).No.29721/2007 which resulted in her favour. This Court in the operative portion of the said Judgment held that the conditions incorporated in Exts.P4 and P8 will stand set aside and it is directed that the period covered by Exts.P2 and P4 will be counted for granting the petitioner minimum pension (Exts.P4 and P8 mentioned above are produced herein as Exts.P4 and P6). Ext.P8 produced in this writ petition is the order passed in Contempt of Court Case No.972/2009. Therein, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench for appropriate orders. It appears that later, the respondents filed W.A.No.1966/2009 against Ext.P7 Judgment which was dismissed as per Ext.P9 and a Special Leave Petition filed challenging Ext.P9 Judgment also was dismissed as evident from Ext.P10 order. Thereafter, the Government implemented the directions and sanctioned minimum pension. But, it is restricted from the date of the order, viz. 14/10/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it is held that the petitioner is entitled for minimum pension, the entitlement will have to be reckoned from the date of retirement and not from the date of the order. It is pointed out that the minimum pension is allowable to the petitioner from the date of retirement which the rule as far as the retired employees are concerned and there cannot be a restriction as now put in Ext.P11. Even though repeated directions were issued by this Court, the respondents have not filed counter affidavit.

(2.) HEARD learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the date chosen by the Government is not arbitrary as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by Ext.P10 order and, thereafter, the present order has been passed.

(3.) THE only issue therefore to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of minimum pension from the date of retirement. There cannot be any dispute that a pensioner will be entitled for the pension and other retirement benefits the next day after the date on which the person attains superannuation. The postponement of the said date cannot be made under any circumstances. It is a legal right of a pensioner to get the due benefits, which is recognized by various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. The only question which was raised earlier, was the validity of the condition that the period of broken service, on regularization will not count for various service benefits. Since the said question was finally decided by this Court by Ext.P9 Judgment, upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judgment in Ext.P7, there cannot be any quarrel with the same. In fact, the Division Bench in para.3 of Ext.P9 Judgment held as follows: If extending the benefit of Ext.P1 order to retired hands should have any meaning, the service, so regularized, should count for pensionary benefits also. The Government while issued Ext.P8 proceeded on the footing that generally, leave without allowance will not count for pensionary benefits. But, the said stand of the Government runs counter to Rule 26 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which states that, "time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified". We do not find anything specified contrary in Ext.P1. If that be so, the respondent is entitled to reckon the regularized service also for computing pensionary benefits. In the light of the declaration of law, there cannot be a dispute regarding the reckoning of the said period. In this case, we are not concerned with the said aspect also. In Ext.P11, no reason is forthcoming to restrict the grant of pension to the petitioner only from the date of Ext.P11 order, 14/10/2010. When the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pension, it cannot be postponed in that manner.