Service Law: Pension – Appellant worked in Telecom Department during the period 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 – On 04.06.1984, he joined Public Sector Undertaking owned by State Government and worked there till 31.05.1987 – On 31.05.1987, through Public Service Commission, he joined the Technical Education Department and served there for 19 years and on reaching superannuation, retired on 30.06.2006 – Appellant made claim for pension, by reckoning the service rendered during the period 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 in the Telecom Department which was service under Central Government – Held: Government Order dated 24.09.2014 made with reference to Rule 29(a) Part III Kerala Service Rules indicated that the benefit sought for by the appellant is provided and the sandwiched non qualifying service as break in the two services is condonable and the prior public service shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pension – The said Government Order has taken note of the several requests received to reckon the prior qualifying service – Further, the main aspect of reckoning the service rendered in Central Government for pensionary benefit after joining State Government service was given effect through the Government Order dated 12.11.2002 and 06.12.2003 i.e., when the appellant was still in State Government service and had not retired – The issue of condoning the break i.e., the sandwich period was claimed immediately on retirement and it was still being agitated – Appellant entitled to relief claimed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The appellant had worked in the Telecom Department from 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 which is pensionable service in usual course if the other requirements were satisfied. The appellant had thereafter worked in the Technical Education Department under the State Government from 31.05.1987, till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006. The said service is also pensionable service. During the interregnum, between 04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987 the appellant worked in ‘SILK’ which is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking and the service rendered therein is admittedly not pensionable service. The said period of service therefore acts as a disconnect between the two different pensionable service rendered by the appellant and the same needs to be condoned to provide a single block of pensionable service. [Para 7][77-A-C]
2. The case of the appellant is not that the non-pensionable service rendered in the State PSU is also to be reckoned and the entire service from 05.02.1974 to 30.06.2006 is to be admitted for computing the pensionary benefits as assumed by the High Court. What the appellant seeks is to exclude the service rendered in State PSU and condone that period between 04.06.1984 to 31.05.1987 from being treated as a disjoint or break between the two pensionable services, though, one is under the Central Government and the other under the State Government. The sum and substance of the claim put forth by the appellant is to reckon the service between 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984, plus, the service between 31.05.1987 to 30.06.2006 as the total number of years as the pensionable service, clearly excluding the number of years between 04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987. [Para 8][77-D-F]
3. Rule 29, Part III Kerala Service Rules, if taken into consideration as a standalone provision, it would settle the issue against the appellant since the break between the two appointments is much more than the joining period and the break itself is due to non-pensionable employment. However, what is required to be examined is the availability of provision to condone such break. Appellant has therefore referred to Rule 39 of Part II KS and SSR to indicate the power available to the State Government to take just and equitable decisions relating to the service of any person and the Rule should be dealt in the manner in which it is favourable to the person in service. [Para 10] [78-B-D]
4. In terms of Government Order dated 12.11.2002, though the benefit of reckoning the earlier pensionable service between Central Government and State Government was provided, it was subject to remitting the proportionate prorata pensionary liability on service share basis between the two employers. However, by a subsequent Government Order dated 06.12.2003, which has reference to the earlier Government Order dated 12.11.2002, the State Government has done away with the proportionate prorata sharing between the two employers for payment of pensionary benefits. The State Government has notified to bear the pensionary benefits. In view of the said position, the observation of the High Court that the appellant is free to move the Central Government if he has a case that his service in the Telecom Department is liable to be reckoned is not justified. If the break in service is condoned as sought by the appellant, then the entire relief would be available at the hands of the State Government. [Paras 11, 12, 13][79-C-D, G-H]
5. Government Order dated 24.09.2014 was made with reference to Rule 29(a) Part III KSR. A perusal of the Government Order dated 24.09.2014 indicates that the benefit sought for by the appellant is provided and the sandwiched non qualifying service as break in the two services is condonable and the prior public service shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. The KAT had taken note of the entire sequence and had rightly noted that the issue had not been settled and not reached finality in the case of the appellant since his review petition dated 17.09.2014 against the order dated 25.07.2014 was still pending when the Government Order dated 24.09.2014 was issued. The said Government Order has taken note of the several requests received to reckon the prior qualifying service. Further, the main aspect of reckoning the service rendered in Central Government for pensionary benefit after joining State Government service was given effect through the Government Order dated 12.11.2002 and 06.12.2003 i.e., when the appellant was still in State Government service and had not retired. The issue of condoning the break was claimed immediately on retirement and it was still being agitated. The review was rejected on 21.05.2015 only after the Government Order dated 24.09.2014 was issued granting the benefit of condoning the break. The KAT was justified in its conclusion and High Court has erred in setting aside the same. [Paras 14 and 15][80-B, F, G-H; 81-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.