The writ petitioner retired from Malayala Manorama News Paper Daily, Kottayam as a Junior Clerk. This writ petition is filed for grant of non-journalists pension. The petitioner entered in the service of the Malayala Manorama as Junior Clerk in regular service from 01.07.1997 and retired on 30.6.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner worked as a contract worker with effect from 17.07.2006 to 16.01.2009. Thus, total service put in by the petitioner both in regular and contract basis is more than 11 years. The respondents rejected the application for pension stating that the petitioner has no service for minimum period of ten years eligible for pension as per the Rules. Challenging Ext.P7 order, this writ petition is filed.
2. Ext.P2 is the scheme for non-journalists pension formulated by the Government. In Rule 4 (1), a person is eligible for pension if he has ten years service continuously or with interval. The case of the respondents is that the contract service is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of eligibility for drawing pension. Accordingly, the remittance made by the petitioner towards contribution has been returned to the petitioner. The Rule 4(1) does not say that continuous service in regular employment. On the other hand, it indicates that service for a period of ten years continuously or with a break. The object of the Rule is to ensure pension to the non-journalists, who have completed ten years service. Therefore, there is no justification for splitting up the service into regular or contract service for the purpose of determining eligibility of pension as the Rule does not distinguish between regular or contract service for the purpose of eligibility of pension. This Court in Damodaran Pillai v. Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority (1989 KHC 534) held as follows:
“6. The provision for pension is a social security measure and in interpreting such provision “logomachy semantic luxuries” have no part to play. We have been told by the Supreme Court that law relating to social and economic justice must be interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution and the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, must be interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution and the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, must go to the weaker section of the society. In KCP Employees Assn. v. Management of KCP Ltd. (1978) 1 LLJ 322) the Supreme Court held:
'In industrial law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker section, labour.'
This principle of social justice is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. The principle of social justice is a living concept given sustenance to rule of law and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone.”
3. Therefore, in view of the welfare scheme, for providing pension, the interpretation of the provision must be to advance the purpose for such welfare measures are intended. Any narrow interpretation would be contrary to the scheme of pension.
In view of the above, Ext.P7 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to receive back contribution from the petitioner and to grant non-journalists pension within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln