A.L. PHILOMINA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed mainly seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE appellant retired from service on superannuation on 31.3.2004 while working as Pharmacist in the office of the District Medical Officer (Homeo), Thrissur. She commenced regular service as Peon in the Homeopathy Department on 14.7.1988. Later, she was promoted as Attender and thereafter as Pharmacist. Prior to such regular service, she had provisional service spanning over a period of seven years two months and nineteen days and the details of the same are as hereunder:

(3.) EXT .P6 order was attacked mainly on two grounds. It was contended that as per G.O.(P) No. 2357/99/Fin dated 25.11.1999 (Ext.P2), provisional service with or without break rendered by employees upto 30.9.1994 which qualifies for earning increments in terms of Government decision No. 2 under Rule 33 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, has to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension irrespective of the dates of retirement after 20.11.1989. It was further contended that in view of the decisions of this Court in, 1996(2) K.L.T. 555 and, 1998(2) K.L.T. 873, mere reason of change in the pay scales due to pay revision, reckoning of the provisional service for increment and service benefits could not be denied. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions mainly in the light of quintessential condition for attracting Government decision No. 2 under Rule 33 of Part I of the Kerala Services Rules that the provisional service should have been in the same category or post in which he/she was appointed on regular basis or regularised following such provisional service with or without break. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant's provisional service prior to 1.10.1994 was either as Lower Division Clerk or as Copyist. Indisputably, she commenced her regular service under the Homeopathy Department not in the same category or post, whilst as Peon. Therefore, the post held by the appellant/petitioner on provisional basis and the post to which she was appointed on regular basis following such provisional service are not in the same category or post. That apart, both the said posts carry different scales of pay. It was after considering the said factual position that the learned Single Judge found that the Government was right in holding that the appellant's case is not one covered by decision No. 2 under Rule 33 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules and consequently dismissed the Writ Petition.