RECKONING OF PROVISIONAL SERVICE FOR PENSION:REG
G.O(P) No.2357/99/Fin. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 25.11.1999.
G.O(P)No.2357/99/Fin. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 25.11.1999.
G.O(P) No.3116/98/Fin. dated 15.12.1998
REF:G.O(P) No.543/89/Fin. dated 20.11.89. G.O(P) No.540/94/Fin. dated 30.9.94.
G.O(P) No.3116/98/Fin. dated 15.12.1998The provisional service with or without break rendered by the employees upto 30.9.1994 which qualifies for earning increments in terms of Govt. Decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part I Kerala Service Rules will be reckoned as Qualifying Service for pension irrespective of dates of retirement after 20.11.89. The provisional service rendered on or after 1.10.1994 will not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.
RECKONING OF PROVISIONAL SERVICE FOR PENSION IN AIDED SCHOOL:A CASE STUDY:
.GO(RT)7638/2021/FIN DT:26/11/2021
" As per GO(P)No.543/89/Fin dated 20.11.1989, it was ordered that the provisional service of an employee with or without break will be reckoned as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. This was issued when the Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part I KSRS was in existence according to which provisional service on regularisation or followed by regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post would be treated as officiating service for the limited purpose of granting of increments subject to conditions stated therein. Since the said Government Decision was deleted with effect from 01.10.1994 as per GO(P)No.540/94/Fin dated 30.09.1994, Goverment had cancelled GO(P)No.543/89/Fin dated 20.11.1989 w.e.f 01.10.1994 vide GO(P)No.3116/1998/Fin dated 15.12.1998.
"GOVERNMENT DECISION No.2 Provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category or post will be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. Provisional service followed by a regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post will also be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments."
6. It is seen from the above that the three conditions are to be met if the benefit of the above decision is made applicable. The 'same category' in the above decision has to be understood as (i) the posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay (ii) the qualification and method should be same and (iii) the post should fall in the same service. Even if these three conditions are met, the same is limited for the purpose of grant of increment and the said period will not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Going by the case of the petitioner it cannot be said that the third condition mentioned above is complied and therefore the petitioner cannot be granted the increments much less the pension. No claim was made by the applicant while he was in service for claiming increments as per the said decision. It was the specific case of the Government before the Tribunal and at every stage that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part 1 KSR. Even otherwise, for the provisional service to be OP(KAT).65 of 2022 reckoned in time of Rule 33 Part I KSR it has to be of the same category as the regular service. The petitioner rendered service only as Bill Collector in Panchayat service and his prior service was as Clerk. We are in complete agreement with the stand of the Government and we accordingly hold that applicant is not entitled to the benefit of decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part 1 KSR.
7. As regards the other contention raised that the provisional service put in by the applicant cannot be reckoned towards Government service, it is clear from Annexure IV that, by the Government Order dated 3.2.1987 the Government declared that the Panchayat employees of the State (except contingent employees) will be treated as in full time Government service from the date of order. There was no challenge to the said Government Order by the applicant and we also do not think that the Government had committed any error in passing an order on 3.2.1987 specifying that the Panchayat employees would be treated as in Government service from the date of the order. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the case as in the instant case the Government itself has passed an order on 3.2.1987 treating the Panchayat employees as Government service from that date possibly taking cue from the law laid down by the constitutional Bench in Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others (supra). Though it is true OP(KAT).65 of 2022 that this contention was not raised before the Tribunal, this question is relevant for deciding the case for determining whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part 1 KSR as the provisional service rendered by the applicant was not followed by a Government service. Accordingly, the stand of the Government has to be accepted and we do so. Further on a perusal of the Kerala Panchayat Act 1960, Kerala Panchayat Common Services Rules, 1997 as well as the Government Order dated 3.2.1987, we hold that the claim of the applicant that his provisional service should be reckoned towards Government service cannot be accepted.
GOVT DECISION NO.2 RULE 33 PART 1 KSR"Provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category or post will be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. Provisional service followed by a regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post will also be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. The term 'same category' of post for the purpose denotes post satisfying the following conditions:-
ReplyForward |
No comments:
Post a Comment