PAUL SIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dtd. 28/6/2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33935 of 2017. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C).

(2.) Appellant, a retired District Judge, had preferred the WP (C) alleging denial of full salary towards leave surrender. After his retirement as a District Judge, the appellant was re-employed as a member of the Advisory Board constituted under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short 'KAAPA'). The service conditions of the member of the Advisory Board are prescribed by Exhibit P2 Rules. As per Rule 6(2) of the said Rules, a member of the Advisory Board is entitled to draw pay and allowances equivalent to the pay and allowances drawn by him at the time of retirement and as per Rule 100 of Part III KSR, a re-employed pensioner will be given pay and other allowances attached to the re-employed post minus the monthly pension he was drawing for his prior service. When the appellant surrendered his earned leave for 30 days, the 2nd respondent, by Exhibit P3 sanctioned only the re-employment pay i.e. Rs.30,080.00 which is only the amount equivalent to the pay after deducting Rs.28,850.00 the monthly pension amount of the appellant as leave salary on the premise that in the event of re-employment, his actual pay is not the re-employment pay as fixed by the Accountant General, but it is equivalent to what he drew last at the time of his retirement as prescribed in Exhibit P2 Rules, which includes the monthly pension amount also. Contending that he is entitled to get the pension amount he was receiving, also treated as part of the salary, and the same is to be taken into account while calculating the earned leave surrender salary, appellant filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, inter alia holding that Rule 92 read with Rule 100 entitles the appellant only for the pay which he would have drawn had he been performing the duty, and had the appellant been on duty, he would have been eligible only for the pre-retirement pay minus pension. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the pension shall not be deducted from the salary since he is not getting a pension for the leave surrendered is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal is filed.