V. SUKUMARAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 26-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
V. SUKUMARAN
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010)
AUGUST 26, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pension – Pensionary benefit granted to Casual labour Roll
(CLR) workers after their absorption on Seasonal labour Roll (SLR)
posts by different Government Orders – Claim by the appellant for
counting the period of his service rendered as CLR worker for
pensionary benefits – Denied by State Government on the ground
that the benefit could not be granted as he was not absorbed directly
from CLR Service but was regularised by appointment through
regular employment process – The view of State Government was
affirmed in Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: Pension is not a bounty payable at will, but a social
welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement – Pensionary
provisions must be given liberal construction – The appellant is
being deprived of the maximum pensionable service which could
be permissible to him if his period of CLR service is recognized as
qualifying service – There is no reason to deny the same to the
appellant when other CLR workers who have rendered lesser service
than the appellant, have got such benefit – Therefore, the benefit of
the service rendered as a CLR worker would be liable to be counted
for determining the pensionary benefits to the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Pension is succour for post-retirement period.
It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as
a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the
employee. The pensionary provisions must be given a liberal
construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply
that something can be given contrary to rules, but the very basis
for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 991
991
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
retired Government employee to live with dignity in his winter of
life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to
an employee, more so on technicalities. [Paras 1 and 19][994-B;
1000-A-B]
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC
305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; U.P. Raghavendra Acharya
& Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 630:
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 582; Deokinandan Prasad v. The
State of Bihar & Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 330 : [1971]  Suppl.
SCR 634 – relied on.
2. To say that the appellant would be denied the benefit of
the period spent as CLR worker for his pensionary benefit would
be to treat his case as inferior one to the case of other CLR
workers, who never went through a system of recruitment for
regularisation but were regularised in the Fisheries Department
to provide better working conditions and monetary benefits to
the employees. It cannot be said that a regularly recruited person
like the appellant should not get the benefit which the other people
who were CLR workers would get, having spent more than 7
years in that capacity. [Para 21][1000-D-F]
3. Had the respondents not issued the G.O.s, no doubt the
appellant would have no claim. The claim of the appellant arises
from the G.O.s, which are beneficial efforts for the CLR workers
to improve the conditions of working along with monetary
benefits. The appellant did work for the aforesaid long period of
time as a CLR worker and should, thus, be entitled to the same
on parity vis-à-vis other CLR workers. The appellant was at serial
No.2 in the aforementioned list and would have been so absorbed
when 29 posts were created. In fact, only 27 posts out of these
were filled in. It is thus not even a case where no post existed or
that it would affect anybody else, or that the Government would
be compelled to create a post for the appellant. In fact, in terms
of the G.O. dated 21.8.2006 an equalisation has been given of
200 days of work as a CLR worker to one year’s regular service
for the purposes of pension. While one would commend such
effort by the State Government, it would be very unreasonable to
deny this to the appellant in view of the facts of the case. [Para
22][1000-G-H; 1001-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
4. The appellant is being deprived of the maximum
pensionable service which would be permissible to him if his
period of CLR service is recognised as qualifying service and
there is no reason to deny the same to him when other CLR
workers have got this benefit at the time of their absorption and
subsequent regu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.