AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala High Court as Section Officer, higher grade, on 31.05.2007. Her original date of retirement was 31.12.2006 and her service was extended upto 31.05.2007 by orders of the Hon''ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala. The 3rd respondent Registrar (General) of the High Court recommended for the consideration of the extended period of service for granting her retirement benefits. But respondents 1 and 2 sanctioned retirement benefits without reckoning the extended period of service. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to reckon the extended period of petitioner''s service for fixing her retrial benefits and to revise the P3, P7 and P8 orders without further delay.
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order calling for the records relating to P3, P7 and P8 and to quash the same.
iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled get her extended period of service reckoned for fixing her pension claims by the 2nd respondent.
Exts.P3, P7 and P8 are the orders by which the petitioner''s request has been rejected. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent which reads as follows:
I, S.S. Satheesachandran, S/o Sri. Sankaranarayana Pillai, aged 55 years, residing at Kaloor, Ernakulam, do hereby make oath and state as follows:
I am the Registrar General of the Hon''ble High Court of Kerala-3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition. I am conversant with the facts of the case as disclosed by the relevant files maintained in the office of the High Court. I beg to deny all averments and allegations in the Writ Petition, except those specifically admitted hereunder.
The Petitioner is a retired Section Officer of the High Court establishment. Her date of superannuation as per Rule 60(a) Part-I K.S.R. read with Rule 35 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules 1970, was 31-12-2006. However, in exercise of the powers under Rule 60(a) and Article 229 of the Constitution, the Hon''ble Chief Justice had ordered extension of service of the Petitioner till 31-5-2007 and the Petitioner accordingly retired from service on 31-5-2007. However, Application of the Petitioner for Pension, submitted by her before orders of extension of service, was issued, was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent. Thereupon the 2nd Respondent issued Ext.P-2 Report of admissibility of pension on the basis that the date of retirement of the Petitioner is 31-12-2006. On receipt of the same, the 3rd Respondent as per Ext.P-4 requested the 2nd Respondent to revise the fixation of pension by reckoning the extended period of service till 31-5-2007 also as service qualifying for pension. However, apparently following Ext.P-7 government letter the 2nd Respondent while issuing Ext.P-8 admissibility report has again reckoned only the service upto 31-12-2006. At the same time, the date of retirement is noted in Ext.P-8 as 31-5-2007.
It is submitted that there is no justification in excluding the extended period of service while computing the qualifying service for pension in the case of the Petitioner. Age of retirement is fixed in Rule 60(a) Part-I, K.S.R. The very same rule permits retention in service beyond 55 years of age. Hence such period of retention in service in continuous of the service, does not stand on a different footing than the previous service till 55 years. Such extended period of service based on orders of the Hon''ble Chief Justice is liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.
In the facts and circumstances explained above, it is submitted that exclusion of the extended period of service while reckoning qualifying service for pension is not justified.
After considering the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, I am satisfied that the writ petition is only to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Exts. P3, P7 and P8 orders are quashed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to recompute the pensionary benefits of the petitioner taking into account the extended period of service upto 31.05.2007 also. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.