B. REMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before us challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) in O.A.(Ekm) No. 1173 of 2016. As per the impugned order, the Original Application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed summarily.

(2.) The petitioners are persons who had been engaged as ICDS Supervisors. The persons who were so engaged were Anganwadi workers with ten years of service. It is not in dispute that, they were engaged on contract basis. But, they continued to work for a long period of time with a break of one day or a few days in between. Since such workers claimed regularisation, the matter was directed by this Court to be considered by the Government, in Writ Petitions that were filed seeking regularisation. Accordingly, the Government considered the claim of the petitioners and by an order dated 16.12.2009 evidenced herein by annexure A3 they were regularised in service. The present claim of the petitioners is that, the period of service that they had put in prior to their regularisation should be taken into account for the computation of their pensionary benefits. It is the said claim that has been rejected by the KAT.

(3.) According to Advocate Jeena Joseph who appears for the petitioners, the petitioners were persons who had been working continuously, though, with an artificial break in their service. Since they had rendered continuous service for a long period of time, it is only appropriate that the said service is also reckoned for the purpose of computing their pensionary benefits. According to the learned counsel, the KAT has omitted to consider the above aspect of the matter. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court in Francis v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2015(1) KLT 1051 to contend that, broken periods of service prior to regularisation was liable to be taken into account for the purpose of pension.