K V ABDUL KADER Vs. ACCOUNTS OFFICER ESTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined as part time contingent sweeper in the Government Mopila School, Kunhimangalam, Kannur District on 10.10.1964. On 12.2.1969 he was relieved from the said School. Thereafter, on 13.2.1969 he entered the service of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department as a Peon advised by Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he was absorbed by the Kerala Water Authority and he retired on superannuation on 31.10.2002. His complaint is that though he is entitled to count fifty per cent of the part time contingent service which he rendered while he worked in the aforesaid School as qualifying service for pension, he is denied the said benefit. He made Ext. Pl representation which was rejected by Ext. P3. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the second respondent recommended to compute fifty per cent of the part time contingent service of petitioner as qualifying service and to revise his pensionary claim vide Ext. P4, that was rejected by the third respondent by Ext. F5. Ext. P7 is a letter addressed by third respondent to the Chief Minister's Public Grievance Cell stating that the Petitioner's claim cannot be considered for the reason that part time contingent service rendered by petitioner was in other Departments. Petitioner challenges Exts. P3, P5 and P7. He relies on Ext. P8 Government Order. Therein, it is stated that in all cases of absorption into regular service from part time contingency service, Rule 14A, Part III Kerala Service Rules shall be followed for calculation of qualifying service for pension. He would contend that there is no basis to deny the benefit of Rule 14A Part III KSR. It is his case that fifty per cent of his part time contingent service has to be included for counting qualifying service for pension. In fact in the decision in Vasu Pillai v. State of Kerala 1986 KLT 198, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the following stand:

(2.) Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Water Authority, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner has not made out a case at all, as a perusal of the Rule would make it clear that an employee entitles to count contingency service, only when he is absorbed into the service. Rule 14A Part III KSR is extracted hereunder:

(3.) I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Rule 14A clearly provides for the contingency when an employee is absorbed from the contingency service to the regular service of the same employer. In the facts of this case, it cannot be in dispute that the petitioner was not absorbed into the regular service of the P.H. Engineering Department. Obviously, he cannot have a case that the he was absorbed into the regular service of the Kerala Water Authority. Apparently, petitioner resigned from the service in the School in 1969. Thereafter, he was recruited - directly and he was appointed pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission. By no stretch of imagination, can this be found to be absorption in service within the meaning of Rule 14A Part III KSR. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.