VALSAN P. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 21-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
VALSAN P.
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6292 of 2021)
OCTOBER 21, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Appellant worked in Telecom
Department during the period 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 – On
04.06.1984, he joined Public Sector Undertaking owned by State
Government and worked there till 31.05.1987 – On 31.05.1987,
through Public Service Commission, he joined the Technical
Education Department and served there for 19 years and on
reaching superannuation, retired on 30.06.2006 – Appellant made
claim for pension, by reckoning the service rendered during the
period 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 in the Telecom Department which
was service under Central Government – Held: Government Order
dated 24.09.2014 made with reference to Rule 29(a) Part III Kerala
Service Rules indicated that the benefit sought for by the appellant
is provided and the sandwiched non qualifying service as break in
the two services is condonable and the prior public service shall be
reckoned as qualifying service for pension – The said Government
Order has taken note of the several requests received to reckon the
prior qualifying service – Further, the main aspect of reckoning the
service rendered in Central Government for pensionary benefit after
joining State Government service was given effect through the
Government Order dated 12.11.2002 and 06.12.2003 i.e., when
the appellant was still in State Government service and had not
retired – The issue of condoning the break i.e., the sandwich period
was claimed immediately on retirement and it was still being agitated
– Appellant entitled to relief claimed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The appellant had worked in the Telecom
Department from 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 which is pensionable
service in usual course if the other requirements were satisfied.
The appellant had thereafter worked in the Technical Education
Department under the State Government from 31.05.1987, till
72
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.06.2006. The said service is also pensionable service. During
the interregnum, between 04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987 the appellant
worked in ‘SILK’ which is a State Government Public Sector
Undertaking and the service rendered therein is admittedly not
pensionable service. The said period of service therefore acts as
a disconnect between the two different pensionable service
rendered by the appellant and the same needs to be condoned to
provide a single block of pensionable service. [Para 7][77-A-C]
2. The case of the appellant is not that the non-pensionable
service rendered in the State PSU is also to be reckoned and the
entire service from 05.02.1974 to 30.06.2006 is to be admitted
for computing the pensionary benefits as assumed by the High
Court. What the appellant seeks is to exclude the service
rendered in State PSU  and condone that period between
04.06.1984 to 31.05.1987 from being treated as a disjoint or break
between the two pensionable services, though, one is under the
Central Government and the other under the State Government.
The sum and substance of the claim put forth by the appellant is
to reckon the service between 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984, plus,
the service between 31.05.1987 to 30.06.2006 as the total number
of years as the pensionable service, clearly excluding the number
of years between 04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987. [Para 8][77-D-F]
3. Rule 29, Part III Kerala Service Rules, if taken into
consideration as a standalone provision, it would settle the issue
against the appellant since the break between the two
appointments is much more than the joining period and the break
itself is due to non-pensionable employment. However, what is
required to be examined is the availability of provision to condone
such break. Appellant has therefore referred to Rule 39 of Part
II KS and SSR to indicate the power available to the State
Government to take just and equitable decisions relating to the
service of any person and the Rule should be dealt in the manner
in which it is favourable to the person in service. [Para 10]
[78-B-D]
4. In terms of Government Order dated 12.11.2002, though
the benefit of reckoning the earlier pensionable service between
Central Government and State Government was provided, it was
VALSAN P. v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
subject to remitting 

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