A. Ahmed Koya vs State of Kerala and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam, the 4th respondent herein, rejecting the request for pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken in Ext.P7 cannot be supported at all. It is further pointed out that the original Service Book of the petitioner was forwarded by the 6th respondent to the office of the 4th respondent and since it is found that the same is missing, again a reconstituted Service Book was also forwarded.

The petitioner while working as Peon after entering service on 01.08.1964 and after getting successful promotions, reached upto the level of Lower Division Store Keeper. On 02.05.1977, the petitioner applied for Leave Without Allowance and the leave was sanctioned for four years. On the expiry of the leave period, it is stated that he had submitted an application for extension of leave. According to the petitioner, even though he had approached the 5th respondent to allow him to rejoin duty, he was not permitted and finally he attained superannuation on 30.07.1999. The petitioner was thereafter served with a copy of Ext.P1 order imposing penalty on him. The same will show that even though he was terminated from service, the initial punishment has been changed as compulsory retirement. Therefore, he has left 13 years of service which qualifies for pension. Thereafter, the petitioner started his efforts to get pension. Ext.P2 is a copy of the communication from the 4th respondent addressed to the Director of Collegiate Education forwarding the Service Book of the petitioner. Therein it is recorded that the petitioner is eligible for grant of pension. But it is mentioned that in the Service Book, the Principal has not signed and appropriate orders were also sought for by the Deputy Director from the Director.

Ext.P3 is a communication issued by the Government stating that the application for pension could not be considered due to certain defects. After this writ petition was admitted, this Court passed an interim order dated 12.10.2009 directing the 4th respondent to process the pension application received from the Principal in respect of the petitioner and take further action in the matter and finalise the same. Thereafter, the 4th respondent forwarded a letter as per Ext.P5 to the Director of Collegiate Education requesting to make necessary arrangements for obtaining sanction from the Government. This was on the premise that since compulsory retirement is the punishment now imposed, the Government sanction is also required.

Ext.P6 is a communication from the office of the Accountant General stating that the pension papers are not seen received in the said office. Finally, by Ext.P7, the 4th respondent took the view that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pension. In Ext.P7, it is stated that the entries in the Service Book of the incumbent are not seen signed by the Principal and most of the service particulars are not seen received. Certain other defects have also been pointed out.

One of the issues in controversy is regarding the missing of the original Service Book. Ext.P2 shows that it was forwarded by the office of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to the Director. Since the same was reported missing, by Ext.R6D the Principal has forwarded the duplicate Service Book for appropriate action. It is the case of the Principal that the original Service Book was forwarded to the competent authority and the same is missing from the offices concerned.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the stand taken is that the duplicate Service Book has been prepared without Government sanction and the Service Book produced do not contain the details of termination from service or compulsory retirement. It is also stated that the petitioner is not eligible for pensionary claims as proposed.

One of the other objection taken is regarding the conversion of the punishment from termination of service to compulsory retirement. Regarding the conversion of punishment, it is submitted by the Manager that the same is permissible in the light of Circular No. 29/2003/Fin. dated 29.03.2003 issued by the Finance (Rules) Department produced as Ext.R6A and the same was complied with by the Manager.

Ext.P3 communication issued by the Government is also under challenge in this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directed the authorities concerned to process the application. In fact, the defects pointed out and discussed in the former paragraphs alone are the reasons for rejection of application for pension. Therefore, for a fresh decision, it is appropriate that the Government itself considers the whole aspects. The original Service Book also will have to be traced out. Evidently, his pension application was processed on a former occasion which has resulted in Ext.P3 order which shows that all the papers were transmitted to different offices along with the service book. Therefore, the original Service Book has to be located and appropriate steps will have to be taken in the matter.

The petitioner will, therefore, file a detailed representation before the Government pointing out all the aspects along with a copy of this judgment within a period of three weeks. For enabling the Government to reconsider the matter, Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take effective steps to trace out the original Service Book of the petitioner which was forwarded along with pension application and a proper report will be submitted before the Government for enabling the Government to take an appropriate decision. If the original Service Book cannot be located in spite of the efforts, then the pension application will have to be processed based on the duplicate Service Book forwarded by the Principal. The Principal will be allowed an opportunity to cure whatever defects are there in the duplicate Service Book also. Appropriate final decision will be taken, after hearing the petitioner and the Principal, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.