EMMANUAL UNNI KALAPURAKAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner submits that after rendering an unblemished service he retired on 23/1/2006 while working as Lecturer in Zoology (Selection Grade) from St.Albert's College, Ernakulam. Petitioner has raised several grievances in the above writ petition. One of which is that the petitioner was granted pension only with effect from 10/5/2015 on the ground that he has submitted his application for pension belatedly and that by virtue of Rule 110 Part III KSR his claim for pension with effect from the date of retirement cannot be granted.

(2.) Petitioner submits that his qualifying pensionary service was reckoned as 14 years only instead of 19 years. His period of service as Junior Lecturer in the leave vacancy period i.e. from 19/7/1971 to 31/3/1972 though followed by regular appointment in the said post in the same scale of pay and in the same college with effect from 1/9/1973 and the period of leave without allowances taken for study purpose for doing MPhil (1/2/1974 to 31/1/1975) and PhD (29/10/1976 to 19/12/1976 and 2/6/1980 to 31/10/1982) were not reckoned as part of his pensionary service based on Rule 14E(b) of Part III KSR and Rule 91 and 91A of Part I KSR. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that though the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Reader while UGC scheme was introduced in the State in 1990 with retrospective effect from 1/1/1986 his initial UGC placement was given only in the post of Lecturer Senior Grade with effect from 1/1/1986 and as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 10/2/1987 and the same was modified further adversely by postponing his promotion to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer to 10/2/1988 i.e. 12 years after his retirement. Further, three advancements given for PhD degree holders was also denied to him. Petitioner also contended that he was imposed a liability of Rs.9,402.00 on 13/3/2018 for not having submitted his thesis in time. Challenging the rejection of these benefits due to the petitioner vide Exts.P14, P18, P15, P11, P13, P13(a), P9, P10 and P27, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier filing WP(C) No.28749 of 2020 and the case was disposed of as per Ext.P17 judgment dtd. 22/12/2020, wherein the petitioner's representation was directed to be considered by the Government. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P17 judgment Ext.P18 Government order was issued on 7/9/2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P18 order after filing of the present writ petition challenging the said order a fresh order has been issued by the Government as per Ext.P30 dtd. 21/12/2021 stating fresh reason for rejecting his Ext.P16 representation. Thereupon, the present writ petition was amended incorporating a challenge against Ext.P30 Government order dtd. 21/12/2021.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader based on the counter affidavit filed submits that the claim raised by the petitioner in Ext.P16 was duly considered by the Government, and on finding that the claim raised is not sustainable in accordance with law, the same was rejected as per Exts.P18 and P30. It is further submitted that petitioner is responsible for the delay which has occurred in the belated submission of the application for pension and that as per the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Government orders, petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.