Sainik School, Kerala Vs. K. Vasudevan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6684/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12243/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12243/2000)
Petitioner: Sainik School, Kerala
Respondent: K. Vasudevan & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6684/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12243/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12243/2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 24, 2001
Head Note:
PENSION
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Earlier service rendered under state government – Later employment sought in Sainik school – Pension given for the service rendered in school – If employee entitled to pension on the basis of service rendered under state government. Held that appointment in school was fresh appointment. Service rendered under state government cannot be counted. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court of Kerala was justified in directing the appellant to pay the pension of an employee-respondent by taking into account the eleven and half years service rendered by the respondent under the state government. From the letter of appointment dated 9.1.1965 as well as the undertaking given by the appellant on 23.12.1964, it is crystal clear that the appointment is a fresh appointment in the institution having no relationship with the past service rendered by the respondent under the state government. From the stand taken by the state government in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, it is equally clear that the respondent resigned from service under the state government and then got appointment afresh under the Sainik school. At the point of time when the respondent was appointed in Sainik school, the service under the school had not become pensionable. But subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Sainik school introduced the pension scheme, and has paid the pension to the employee respondent taking into account, the period of service rendered by him under the institution, namely 25 years. The grievance of the respondent, however, before the High Court was that his past services should also be taken into account, and then the school may be directed to pay the entire pension. The High Court by the impugned order appears to have considered the earlier direction and taken the view that the liability has been fastened on the institution under the previous judgment. But having examined the earlier judgment of the High Court, we find that the direction was against the state government and not against the institution. So long as the state government is willing to pay the pension to the respondent for the services rendered by him under the state government, institution cannot have any grievance. But there would be no rationale to compel Sainik school, the new employer of the respondent, to pay the pension by taking into account the eleven and half years of service, which the respondent had rendered under the state government. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction of the High Court requiring the Sainik school to pay the enhanced pension by taking into account the eleven and half years of service rendered by the respondent under the state government. The counsel for the respondents, in course of his arguments, relied upon the relevant rules, which the institution has framed subsequent to the judgment of this Court, more particularly paragraph 1.2 (b). But having examined the said rules, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid rules will not apply to the case in hand inasmuch as under the condition contained in 1 (a), it shall be the responsibility of the state government and not of the institution, and no such undertaking has been given by the state government, as required under 1 (a) (ii).
3. The appeal is allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court of Kerala was justified in directing the appellant to pay the pension of an employee-respondent by taking into account the eleven and half years service rendered by the respondent under the state government. From the letter of appointment dated 9.1.1965 as well as the undertaking given by the appellant on 23.12.1964, it is crystal clear that the appointment is a fresh appointment in the institution having no relationship with the past service rendered by the respondent under the state government. From the stand taken by the state government in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, it is equally clear that the respondent resigned from service under the state government and then got appointment afresh under the Sainik school. At the point of time when the respondent was appointed in Sainik school, the service under the school had not become pensionable. But subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Sainik school introduced the pension scheme, and has paid the pension to the employee respondent taking into account, the period of service rendered by him under the institution, namely 25 years. The grievance of the respondent, however, before the High Court was that his past services should also be taken into account, and then the school may be directed to pay the entire pension. The High Court by the impugned order appears to have considered the earlier direction and taken the view that the liability has been fastened on the institution under the previous judgment. But having examined the earlier judgment of the High Court, we find that the direction was against the state government and not against the institution. So long as the state government is willing to pay the pension to the respondent for the services rendered by him under the state government, institution cannot have any grievance. But there would be no rationale to compel Sainik school, the new employer of the respondent, to pay the pension by taking into account the eleven and half years of service, which the respondent had rendered under the state government. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction of the High Court requiring the Sainik school to pay the enhanced pension by taking into account the eleven and half years of service rendered by the respondent under the state government. The counsel for the respondents, in course of his arguments, relied upon the relevant rules, which the institution has framed subsequent to the judgment of this Court, more particularly paragraph 1.2 (b). But having examined the said rules, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid rules will not apply to the case in hand inasmuch as under the condition contained in 1 (a), it shall be the responsibility of the state government and not of the institution, and no such undertaking has been given by the state government, as required under 1 (a) (ii).
3. The appeal is allowed.
