AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to count the service from 7th June 2004 to 12th September 2005 spent by the Petitioner with Kerala State Housing Board, on deputation, for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
The Petitioner joined as Junior Engineer with Tuticorin Port Trust on 12th September 1972. The Petitioner, while working with the Tuticorin Port Trust as Superintending Engineer, applied for the post of Chief Engineer in Kerala State Housing Board in the month of December 2003. The application was sent through proper channel i.e through Respondent No. 1.
The Petitioner was appointed on deputation for one year in the Kerala State Housing Board. However, he was not relieved on completion of one year tenure i.e on 08.06.2005. The Petitioner was relieved only on 13th September 2005.
The case of the Petitioner is that after he was relieved from the Kerala State Housing Board, he approached the Respondent No. 1 to allow him to join duty. The Respondent No. 1 did not allow the Petitioner to join duty, which forced the Petitioner to take leave upto 29th December 2005. The Petitioner thereafter joined on 30th December 2005.
The case of the Petitioner is, that he was suspended on 31st December 2005 and thereafter allowed to retire on 02.01.2006.
The Petitioner has levelled allegations of recapable against the order of suspension, but those are irrelevant, as the Petitioner was allowed to retire from service on the date of superannuation, and the person against whom allegations have been levelled has not been impleaded as a party by name.
The only grievance raised in this petition is, that for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits and grant of pension etc., the respondent No. 1 has failed to take into consideration the service rendered by the Petitioner with Respondent No. 2 on deputation i.e from 07.06.2004 to 12.09.2005.
On notice, counter has been filed, wherein, the stand of the respondent No. 1 in paragraph No. 17 is as follows:
With regard to the other allegations stated in the affidavit, it is submitted that the Kerala Housing Board had to discharge the Pension Contribution amounting to Rs. 63,662.08 and the Leave Salary Contribution amounting to Rs. 24,777.32 for the period spent by the Petitioner on deputation from 07.06.2004 to 13.09.2005 as per the Terms & Conditions of deputation sent by the Kerala State Housing Board. The Kerala State Housing Board has been addressed in this regard by the Administration Department of this Port vide letter No. S-10/1/2005-E-I, dated 21.09.2005, 17.11.2006, 14.05.2007, 04.08.2007 and 14.09.2007 and the Accounts Department of this Port vide letter No. A-9/4/2004-PB II/Off., dated 09.10.2006, 10.11.2006 and 29.12.2006. An amount of Rs. 22,143.08 towards pension contribution and amount of Rs. 24,777.32 towards Leave Salary Contribution are yet to be settled by the Kerala State Housing Board. Though there are provisions in the Terms & Conditions sent by Kerala State Housing Board for payment of Leave Salary Contribution, the Board has intimated that the leave salary contribution will not be remitted. As per Government of India''s decision (1) (a) under Rule 67 of the CCS Pension Rule, it is the responsibility and liability of the Government servant himself to maintain the continuity of pensionable service by the payment of pension contribution. Further as per FR115(C) pension and leave salary contribution shall be paid by the government servant himself, unless the foreign employer consent to pay them. In the circumstances as an alternative, the Petitioner was requested to pay the unsettled pension and leave salary contribution in order to take the service rendered by him in the deputation period for pensionary benefits. But, he had refused. In view of the above the service rendered by the Petitioner in the KSHB from 07.06.2004 to 13.09.2005 on deputation basis could not be taken for calculating pension and other pensionary benefits and accordingly, he had been paid pension for the service rendered by him in TPT (i.e 12.09.1972 to 07.06.2004).
In view of the stand taken by the Respondent, on consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Once the Petitioner was sent on deputation with the Respondent No. 2 and on being relieved from the post by the second Respondent Board, joined back duty with the Respondent No. 1, it is for the Respondent No. 1 to pay all the retiral benefits including for the period spent on deputation.
It is open to the Petitioner to claim retiral benefits and pension qua the period spent with the Respondent No. 2 on deputation, but the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of non-receipt of amount from Respondent No. 2. The stand of Respondent No. 2 is that the amount falling to its share stands paid to Respondent No. 1.
This fact is disputed by Respondent No. 1. This Court is not to go into this question as this has to be settled between the Respondents 1 & 2, the Petitioner in any case, is entitled to retirement benefits and pension, by taking into consideration the service rendered on deputation with Respondent No. 2.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The writ in nature of mandamus is issued directing Respondent No. 1 to redetermine, the pension and other retiral benefits payable to Petitioner, by taking into consideration the period of service spent by the Petitioner on deputation with Respondent No. 2 i.e 7th June 2004 to 12th September 2005.
It shall be open to the Respondent No. 1 to see as to what share, is to be paid by Respondent No. 2, and whether it stands paid or not, in case any amount is found due to recover it.
Consequently, connected M.P.1 of 2007 is closed.
The benefits arising out of this order, be released to the Petitioner, within three months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No costs.