1 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 1528 OF 2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2013 IN WPC NO.11179 OF 2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR S/O.K.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, CHERUVILAKATTU VEEDU, ALAYAMPALLY KONAM, MUKKOLA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. (EX.LDC, FAIR COPY SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) BY ADV SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. GEORGIE JOHNY, SC KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 JUDGMENT Muralee Krishna, J. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11179 of 2010, being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim any benefit of pension as his qualifying service is less than what is actually provided. 2. The appellant is a person suffering from 45% of permanent orthopaedic disability. He was provisionally employed under the respondent Kerala Water Authority in four spells, such as, 15.06.1991 to 10.12.1991, 06.01.1992 to 02.07.1992, 23.11.1994 to 23.03.1995 and 04.04.1997 to 30.09.1997. As per the order dated 28.09.1998, the Government has issued an order for reappointing and regularising physically handicapped employees who were in service during the period from 01.01.1997 to 14.08.1998. The order was made applicable to the Kerala Water Authority also. Though the appellant was ordered to be reappointed as per order dated 04.10.1999, he was not allowed to join duty on the ground of non-production of the qualification 3 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 certificate of the Pump Operator. The appellant then approached this Court by filing O.P. No.5465 of 2000 in which Ext.P2 judgment dated 08.10.2001 was passed directing the appellant to file a representation before the Secretary to Government within one month from the date of the judgment and directing the Secretary to pass orders thereon within one month thereafter. Pursuant to the said direction, the appellant submitted a representation dated 22.10.2001 before the Secretary to Government, which was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 30.03.2002. Challenging Ext.P3 the appellant filed O.P. No.33758 of 2002 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 06.02.2006 directing to reconsider the matter. The appellant again preferred a representation dated 03.07.2006 before the Government which was disposed of by Ext.P7 order dated 15.11.2006 according sanction to the respondent to give regular appointment to the appellant either in relaxation of prescribed qualification for the post of Pump Operator or in a post for which he is qualified. Thereafter, the respondent issued Ext.P8 order dated 17.01.2007 according sanction to reappoint and regularize the appellant as 4 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 L.D Clerk in the future arising vacancy with service benefits from 23.11.1994. Pursuance to Ext.P8 order, the Senior Administrative Officer of the respondent issued Ext.P9 order dated 14.02.2007 re-appointing the appellant to the post of L.D Clerk. Later, Ext.P10 erratum notification dated 24.03.2007 was issued by the respondent substituting the last two paragraphs of Ext.P7. The appellant retired from service on 30.11.2008. But, he was not sanctioned with the pension, in spite of submitting several representations. When he submitted the pension book, instead of sanctioning the minimum pension, by Ext.P13 letter dated 14.08.2009 the respondent directed him to furnish the prescribed application for sanctioning exgratia pension. Finally, on 26.07.2010 the respondent passed Ext.P17 order cancelling the service benefits allowed to the appellant with effect from 23.11.1994 and benefit of re-appointment and regularisation with effect from 28.09.1998. It was further ordered that the regularisation of the appellant pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2007 shall be with effect from 15.02.2007. Thereafter the appellant filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the 5 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 letter and Ext.P17 order. The appellant also sought a declaration that he has got minimum qualifying service making him eligible for minimum pension in the light of Ext.P10 and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to sanction and disburse minimum pension and other retiral benefits to him. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as said above. Impugning that judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that he has 1 year 9 months regular service, apart from the provisional service of 20 months. If the period of provisional service is taken into account, he would be having a service of nearly 4 years and even if the entire provisional service cannot be taken into account, his last spell of provisional service of 5 months can be counted for calculating the qualifying service in view of Ext.P8 order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on 6 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 Ext.P8 order dated 17.01.2007 issued by the Managing Director of the respondent wherein it is stated that sanction is accorded to re-appoint and regularise the appellant as L.D Clerk in the future arising vacancy with the service benefits from 23.11.1994, i.e, from his 3rd spell of provisional service, to argue that at least his last spell of provisional service has to be added to the regular service for entitling him to claim pension. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Water Authority submitted that the appellant was given re-appointment to the post of L.D Clerk by Ext.P7 special order of the Government since he did not have the qualification for regularisation in the post of Pump Operator. In Ext.P7 it was made clear that the re-appointment was given with prospective effect. The mistake in Ext.P8 order pertaining to the adding of 3rd spell of provisional service and the calculation of service benefit from 23.11.1994 was rectified by Ext.P17 order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent. Hence the appellant is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 7. The appellant did not have the qualification for 7 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 regularisation in the post of Pump Operator in which he was working provisionally during different spells. In Ext.P7 it was held that since the appellant was unqualified for the post of Pump Operator in the Kerala Water Authority, his provisional appointment itself was irregular. However, he was directed to be re-appointed in the post for which he is qualified in pursuance to Ext.P8 order passed by the Managing Director of the respondent. It is true that in Ext.P8 it was held that the appellant is appointed as L.D Clerk in the future arising vacancy with the service benefits from 23.11.1994, i.e. from his 3rd spell of provisional service. But that order was rectified by Ext.P17 order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Managing Director, making it clear that the re-appointment and regularisation were with effect from 15.02.2007, i.e. the date of his joining duty. Ext.P8 order was modified by Ext.P17. By Ext.P14 order of the Government dated 08.11.1996 minimum pension was sanctioned to physically handicapped Government employees with 40% of permanent/partial disability of the upper or lower extremity deformities, inclusive of the blind, deaf and dumb having a minimum period of 3 years qualifying service. 8 WA No.1528 of 2013 2025:KER:27417 From the date of the re-appointment of the appellant, he is not having the said period of qualifying service. In view of Exts.P7 and P17 orders, the appellant cannot claim his provisional service of appointment as a qualifying period for service benefits. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE sks