Summary
The Court restored the Tribunal’s order allowing the employee’s Central and Kerala government service to be combined for pension after condoning the intervening non-qualifying PSU service as a break. That intervening service itself was excluded from pensionable years. The 2014 Government Order applied because the employee’s request remained unsettled when it was issued, while earlier orders had already enabled reckoning Central service. Kerala could provide the relief without directing him to seek it from the Central Government.
Issues
- Whether intervening non-pensionable PSU employment could be condoned to link two spells of qualifying government service.
- Whether the 2014 condonation order applied to the employee’s still-pending claim despite his earlier retirement.
Provisions considered
- Part III, Rule 29, Kerala Service RulesThe ordinary forfeiture and joining-time restrictions were considered together with the Government’s subsequent order permitting condonation of intervening non-qualifying service. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14)
- Part II, Rule 39, Kerala State and Subordinate Services RulesThe Government’s power to deal justly and equitably with service cases formed part of the governing framework considered with the pension orders. (¶¶ 4, 10, 11, 12, 14)
Held
- The claim sought pension for the two government-service spells, excluding the intervening SILK employment. The High Court misunderstood it as a claim to count the non-pensionable PSU service itself. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8)
- The 2002 and 2003 orders permitted reckoning earlier Central Government service and placed the pension liability on the government to which the employee belonged at retirement, without recovery of a proportionate share for that government service. He therefore need not seek this relief separately from the Centre. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The 24 September 2014 order permitted condonation of the intervening non-qualifying period without forfeiture of earlier qualifying service. The employee’s review remained pending when it was issued, and the underlying benefit of reckoning Central service predated his retirement. Earlier retirement did not defeat this unsettled claim. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and Tribunal order restored for implementation. Its implementation period runs from this judgment; no order as to costs.