Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 8th September 2020
V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala
Facts:
The appellant- V. Sukumaran joined as a Casual Labour Roll Worker (CLR) with Fisheries Department, State Government of Kerala in a pilot project on Pearl Culture on 07-07-1976, he worked here up to 29-11-1983 rendering 7 years, 4 months and 23 days of service. On the advice of District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), through a direct recruitment process he joined the Revenue Department, Kannur District as a Lower Department Clerk (LDC) on 30-11-1983 and worked there for a few years seeking inter-departmental transfer back to Fisheries Department and joined on 18-09-1987 on a probation of two years which was regularised on 18-09-1989. He earned his promotion as an Upper Department Clerk (UDC) and retired from this post attaining age of superannuation on 31-12-2008, the appellant had rendered a total service of about 25 years excluding his service as CLR.
The State Government had issued some Government Orders (GO) to improve the financial remuneration for CLR and Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR) posts. A GO dated 04-11-1989 had provided for absorption of CLR workers as SLR workers if they had rendered 240 days a year of service in the Fisheries Department prior to 16-09-1985, despite this the services of some CLR workers were not regularised, aggrieved by this they approached the Kerala High Court who asked the Kerala State Government to address this issue. Subsequently a GO dated 20-08-1993 was issued noting that 29 SLR posts were created for CLR workers who had completed 500 days of work before 01-04-1987 and simultaneously 27 employees in the Fisheries Department who had worked for the past 20 years and had completed 8 years of service as CLR workers were permanently absorbed with consequent pensionary and provident fund benefits. A GO dated 21-08-2006 was issued by which Pension (Gratuity) Rules for SLR workers/ permanent labourers of Fisheries Department were framed to grant pension to those workers; these rules were to apply with retrospective effect from 31-03-2001. Rule 4(f)(iii) of the Kerala Pension Rules stated that 200 or more days of service period spent as a CLR in a calendar year would be treated as one qualifying year for pension. Pursuant to these developments the appellant made a representation dated 27-11-2006 to the Assistant Director of the Fisheries Department for passing orders to treat his more than 7 years of service as a CLR for pension and claimed that he be treated at par with other CLR workers who had worked in the department for the requisite period of time.
The appellant has also requested to be provided with the service details of other such workers, obtaining which he discovered that he was the 2nd senior most CLR worker, this representation received favourable consideration with recommendation being made by the Director, Fisheries Department. The State Government did not accept the recommendation made by the Fisheries Department and rejected the appellant’s application stating that the CLR worker had been appointed by the KPSC and had not been absorbed as an SLR by the Fisheries Department from the CLR service like the other workers and so the benefit could not be extended to him. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court against the respondents, he claimed he had completed 1687 days of service in the Fisheries Department and so is eligible to be appointed in one of the 29 posts created, was also pointed out that only 27 such posts were filled. He stated the State Government’s rejection of the recommendation given by the Fisheries Department is incorrect, and the appellant would have been regularised as a SLR worker had he continued to work in the Fisheries Department.
The appellant also relied on Rule 13, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules which state that work establishment employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50% of such service for pension. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 16-01-2009 on the ground that the appellant had joined the Revenue Department through appointment by KPSC and on his own request sough inter-departmental transfer to the Fisheries Department he could not compare himself with the CLR workers regularised as SLR workers and were governed by the various GO’s. He appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Bench of the High Court filed an appeal before a Division Bench which was dismissed by an order dated 03-06-2009 on same grounds as held by the single bench.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant is entitled to maximum payable pension based on his 8 years of service as a CLR worker in the Fisheries Department.
- Whether the State Government was right in rejecting the application of the appellant and the recommendation made by the Fisheries Department.
- Whether the Single Bench and Divisional Bench of the Kerala High Court had rightly dismissed the appellant’s petition.
Legal Provisions:
- Kerala Service Rules, Rule 13 – Pensionary benefit for service rendered as a Casual Labour Roll worker.
Respondent’s Contention:
The respondent contended that the writ petition should be resisted as benefit of the GO dated 21-08-2006 does not extend to the appellant. They also stated that since the appellant was recruited by the KPSC and did not continue as a CLR worker with the Fisheries Department, the benefit of Rule 4(f)(iii) would not apply to him. the pension rules applicable to him are different under Part II of the Service Rules. The also stated that appellant being a direct recruit by KPSC enjoyed benefits of a higher post since 1983 which were not available to his other original co-workers till 2001 and had the appellant not transferred back to the Fisheries Department, he wouldn’t have been in a position to make this claim.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The petitioner contended that the same argument as before the High Court. He pleaded that his 1678 days of service as CLR worker be counted and the true intention of GO dated 20-08-1993 be given effect to. The counsel for the appellant also emphasized that ‘pension is a right vested in a Government servant and is not a bounty payable at the will and pleasure of the Government as also that pension is a social welfare measure and a post retirement entitlement; something with which we began our order.’
Observations of the Court:
The case was hear before the Supreme Court Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, JJ. The court did not accept the rationale and reasoning of the Single Bench and Division Bench of Kerala High Court in this case. The court stated that pensionary benefits should be treated as a social welfare measure, which does not mean to do something contrary to the rules but the motive of the pension scheme which is to facilitate retired Government employees in their old-age should be upheld and not be unreasonably denied due to technicalities. The observed the facts and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the facts put forth by the appellant in his application and contentions. The court also observed that to deny the appellant the benefit of his 1678 days of service as CLR worker would be treating his case inferior to that of other CLR workers. The court also observed that had the State Government not issued the GO’s the appellant would have no ground to make such a claim. It held that considering the facts of the case, the pensionary benefit cannot be denied to the appellant and he would be permitted to have his 1678 days of service as CLR worker be counted for the same as there was no reason to deny it to him when other CLR workers enjoyed the pensionary benefits. The court also observed that Rule 13 of the Kerala Service Rules aids the rationale the court is seeking to adopt.
Judgement:
The court in its judgement dated 26-08-2020, stated that the appellant’s application is entitled to succeed and set aside the impugned orders. The also held that the State Government’s rejection of the recommendation made by respondent no.2 – Fisheries Department was improper and unsustainable. The arrears of the pension were ordered to be remitted to the appellant within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of judgement with admissible interest as applicable on the outstanding pension amount. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
Leave a Reply