SUNNY Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per Ext. P1 Government Order dt. 9.9.1986, it was ordered inter alia that the N.M.R. workers of the Public Works Department appointed prior to 7.4.1970 on regularisation would be allowed to continue in service till 58 years of age. As per Ext. P2 proceeds of the first respondent, Kerala Water Authority (for short 'the Authority') the benefit conferred by Ext. P1 G. O. was extended to the N. M. R. workers of the Authority also. The first respondent Authority thereafter issued Ext. P3 proceedings dated 23.2.1987 to reinstate those N. M. R. personnel appointed prior to 7.4.1970 and absorbed into regular establishment in the Authority, but who have retired from service on attaining the age of 55, and allow them to continue in service till the age of 58, based on Ext. P1 G. O. As per Ext. P3 it was also decided that such reinstatement may be restricted to incumbents having atleast 3 months for attaining the age of 58. Ext. P3 was passed based on the resolution passed by the Authority in its 43rd meeting held on 30.1.1987. Since the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service on the basis of Exts. P1 to P3 orders - proceedings - he submitted representations dt. 7.3.1987 and 18.12 1987 to the Executive Engineer of the First Respondent Authority who instead of reinstating the petitioner sought clarification from the authority. Since the Executive Engineer did not take any steps to reinstate the petitioner, the petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation dt. 7.3.1988 to the first respondent, but of no avail. The petitioner completed 58 years of age on 13.4.1988 without being reinstated in service. Thereafter, he preferred Ext. P5 representation dt. 7.12.1988 requesting to give arrears of salary from 1.5.1985 to 30.4.1988 and to refix the pensionary benefits accordingly. But nothing was done to redress the grievances of the petitioner. Thereafter, Government issued Ext. P6 letter to the Managing Director of the first respondent Authority stating that the N. M. R. Workers whose services were terminated on completion of 55 years of age and who were subsequently reinstated in service and allowed to continue till the age of 58 years, may be given arrears of salary for the period out of employment, after adjusting the pension already drawn for the period out of employment. According to the petitioner, the first respondent without considering the implication of Ext. P6 issued Ext. P7 order dt. 9.3.1990 stating that the petitioner will be allowed only notional fixation of pay and pension as if he had retired from service at the age of 58 without the benefit of back arrears. Aggrieved by Ext. P7, the petitioner submitted Ext. P8 representation to the Minister of Irrigation. Thereafter, the first respondent Authority by Ext. P9 letter dt 20.5.1992 addressed to the second respondent informed the latter that the question of granting the benefit of Ext. P6 is to be considered by the Government. Again, the first respondent had by Ext. P10 communication requested the Government to consider the petitioner's request for arrears of salary for the period he was kept out of service on sympathetic grounds. On receipt of Ext P10 communication, the Government sought opinion of the Chief Engineer in this matter and Ext. P11 is the communication from the Chief Engineer addressed to the Government informing that the petitioner is eligible for getting pensionary benefits had he been allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of 58 years as per Ext. P1 G. O. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext. P12 G. O. dt. 19.8.1995 ordering that the period upto 58 years of age of the petitioner will be allowed to count for purposes of pensionary benefits only.

(2.) The prayer in this Original Petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give arrears of salary to the petitioner from 1.5.1985 to 30.4.1988 as if the petitioner had continued in service with interest at 18% per annum to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give revised pension, gratuity and commuted value of pension to the petitioner as if he had retired from service on 30.4.1988 with interest at 18% per annum.

(3.) The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner could not be reinstated in service after his retirement pursuant to Ext. P3 as the authority had to seek clarification from the Government on the question as to whether the persons absorbed from work establishment will come under the purview of Ext P1 order.