Lysamma Francis @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Kerala And Ors

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to submit fresh proposal for grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the light of judgments at Exhibit P7 and P8.

Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have her service rendered in Aided School counted for the purpose of pro-rata pensionary benefits and direct respondents 1 to 5 to take action accordingly.

Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

Award the cost of these proceedings.

A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P10 and set aside Exhibit P10.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had worked as a Music Teacher from 5.10.1981 onwards. She was deputed as a Music Teacher to the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 30.9.1988. She was later absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya w.e.f. 1.9.1992. It is stated that petitioner's earlier Aided school service was verified and certified by Ext.P4, but vide Ext.P5, the payment of pro-rata benefits was not approved on the ground that the petitioner's earlier service was in an Aided school. It is stated that though the petitioner had taken up the issue before the Government, relying on Exts.P7 and P8 judgments of this Court dealing with identical factual situation. By Ext.P10 communication, dated 12.5.2017, the request was rejected on the ground that the provision for payment of pro-rata pension contribution is applicable only in case of Government Service and not in respect of Aided school employees. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Exts.P7 and P8 judgments were rendered in identical factual situations and the refusal to consider the same is totally unsustainable.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent contending that the petitioner's case had been examined, but Exts.P7 and P8 judgments were not considered, because those judgments were pertaining to individuals.

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The petitioner had specifically pointed out Exts.P7 and P8 judgments of this Court in support of her contentions that the earlier Aided school service put in by her was liable to be reckoned as qualified service for pension. The issue of payment of pro-rata pension contribution had been specifically considered in the said judgments, especially, in Ext.P8, in detail. The reasons stated in Ext.P10 for refusing to consider the findings in Exts.P7 and P8 judgments are completely unsustainable. Moreover, Ext.P10 is not a Government Order in the sense that, it is not an executive order issued in compliance with the provisions of Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India and is only a communication of the rejection of the relief. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the said order, which did not consider the relevant aspects and the findings in Exts.P7 and P8 judgments which had been raised by the petitioner is completely unsustainable.

Ext.P10 is therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take up the request of the petitioner for payment of pro-rata pension contribution in respect of the Aided school service put in by the petitioner as verified in Ext.P4, in the light of Exts.P7 and P8 judgments. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.