LAWS(KER)-2018-2-92

VILASAN MAROLI Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD

Decided On February 05, 2018
Vilasan Maroli Appellant
V/S
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.05.2017 while working as an Overseer, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order by which his request for reckoning his provisional service rendered for the period from 10.05.1982 to 16.12.1997 for the purpose of pension, was rejected.

(2.) Petitioner submits that he entered service under the Board as Skilled Assistant in the Chief Electrical Inspectorate and worked as such from 10.05.1982 to 16.11997 on provisional basis. He was advised for appointment as Mazdoor (Electricity worker) on 19.07.1997 and accordingly he joined in regular service as Mazdoor on 17.11997 based on Ext.P2 order. Petitioner claims that as per Ext.P3, Long Term Settlement 2016 his provisional service during the period from 1982 to 1997 is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Claiming this benefit, he submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 08.03.2016. The said request was rejected as per Ext.P6 letter. Though petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent, no decision was taken. Therefore he approached this Court in Writ Petition No.23584/2016 which was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment dated 15.07.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the said representation. Ext.P8 order was passed thereafter rejecting his request stating that the provisional service rendered on or after 01.10.1994 would not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension as per G.O.(P) No.2351/99/Fin. dated 25.11.1999 and that the Board had adopted that Government Order as per B.O.No.419/2001 (Estt.V/1468/90) dated 19.02001.

(3.) The Chief Engineer had verified the service break of the petitioner and found that petitioners service was not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension in the light of the Government Order dated 25.11.1999 and as per Board Order dated 19.02.2001. It was also found that there is no provision to treat provisional or temporary service as officiating one for the purpose of grant of increment.