The petitioner was appointed as 'Mechanic' in the 1st respondent corporation with effect from 22-03-1979. He retired from service on attaining superannuation, on 31-08- 2002. During his period of service in the 1st respondent corporation the petitioner had availed leave without allowance for taking employment abroad, as provided under Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR, for distinct spells from 05-12- 1982 to 18-04-1986 and from 05-09-1986 to 06-12-1998.
The petitioner has only 7 years, 10 months and 16 days of qualifying service under the 1st respondent corporation. Therefore he became ineligible for monthly pension, because he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service. But prior to entry in the service of the 1st respondent corporation the petitioner had worked as a seasonal employee in the “Seasonal Labourer on Rolls (SLR” worker) in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government, for the period from 14-03-1977 to 18-03-1979. Exhibit P9 is the certificate issued by the Kerala Water Authority evidencing that the petitioner was working as SLR operator in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department for the above said period. The petitioner claimed that, in a bipartite settlement arrived between 1st respondent and its employees on 13-04- 1999, it was agreed that service under the Government prior to joining service of the corporation will be counted as qualifying for pension, provided the break between Government service and the KSRTC service shall not exceed 3 months. Clause XXIII (2) of the said agreement is referred to in this regard. Therefore it is claimed that if the service rendered as SLR worker is also reckoned as qualifying service, the petitioner had 9 years, 10 months and 21 days, which can be rounded to 10 years of qualifying service making him eligible for pension. The petitioner had approached the 1st respondent corporation with a request in this regard. But in Ext.P4 letter claim of the petitioner was rejected stating that service of the petitioner as SLR operator is purely provisional one and it will not come under the purview of Clause XXIII (2) of the bipartite agreement and cannot be counted as qualifying for the purpose of pension. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks direction to sanction and disburse monthly pension with arrears of other terminal benefits.
2. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 letter issued by the Government to the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority. The said letter is having the effect of extending benefits provided to NMR workers in the Public Works Department to the workers of Water Authority also. By virtue of a Government order the CLR/SLR service rendered by those NMR workers of PWD who were absorbed into regular service was directed to be counted for the purpose of granting minimum pension. The Government extended the benefit of counting the CLR/SLR service with respect to similar categories of workers absorbed in the Kerala Water Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the SLR service was approved to be counted for the purpose of sanctioning minimum pension, the 1st respondent ought to have considered SLR service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 it is contended that, the petitioner had failed to produce his Service Book for verifying the claim with respect to the SLR service. It is further contended that service provided under the bipartite settlement in Clause XXIII is prior Government service on a regular basis and not any provisional service. The 3rd respondent in their counter affidavit had contended that SLRs are only daily rated casual labourers and are not permanent employees. They were paid wages only for the work they are doing and hence such service cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. It is pointed out that as per Rule 4 of Part III KSR claim for pension cannot be admitted when an employee is admitted only for limited time or for a specific duty on completion of which he has to be discharged or when a person is not retained in public service, but paid only for the work done for the State. It is also mentioned that when a person is employed temporarily on a monthly basis without specific limited time or duty, no claim for pension is admitted. Therefore it is contended that the SLR service cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension calculation.
4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he had worked only as SLR employee. As contended by the respondents, employment as SLR can neither be termed as permanent nor as provisional. But it is purely a casual engagement on daily wage basis. Terms of the settlement is only to the effect that service under the Government prior to joining 1st respondent corporation with qualify for pension. Under normal circumstances, the prior service can be reckoned only if it is a pensionable service. In the case at hand, SLR service rendered by the petitioner cannot be considered even as a provisional service. As mentioned above, the petitioner is not in a position to point out any orders issued either by the Government or by the 1st respondent corporation or any agreement to the effect that casual engagement if any under the State Government or any other agency prior to entry in service will be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Ext.P5 is on a totally different context. It is a case where an employee who had rendered casual service is subsequently absorbed in the very same Department. As a concession the Government had declared that such service will be counted for the purpose of minimum pension. There the casual labourer was subsequently absorbed as provisional employee and thereafter in the permanent establishment. Therefore, as a concession, such casual service under the very same employer was directed to be counted for the purpose of minimum pension. Here, the first respondent Corporation cannot be burdened with any such liability, since the casual service was not rendered for the corporation and since the petitioner had no pensionable service in any other establishment. No payment of pro-rata pension liability can be claimed by the 1st respondent corporation from the Government in such circumstances. Therefore the claim made by the petitioner cannot be sustained.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same hereby dismissed.
AMG/RAV Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge