Holding

The appellant’s period of service as a CLR worker must be counted as qualifying service for pension, and the State Government’s refusal to do so is unlawful.

Summary

V. Sukumaran, who had worked for over seven years as a Casual Labour Roll (CLR) employee in the Kerala Fisheries Department, later entered government service through a regular recruitment process and retired as an Upper Division Clerk. He claimed that his CLR service should be counted as qualifying service for pension under various Government Orders and the Pension Rules, which equate 200 days of CLR work in a year to one year of regular service. The State Government rejected his claim, stating that only those directly absorbed from CLR to Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR) were eligible. The High Court upheld the rejection. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that pension is a social‑welfare right that must be given a liberal construction and that the appellant’s CLR service should be counted for pension, invoking Rule 13 of the Kerala Service Rules and the relevant Government Orders. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the appellant was awarded pension benefits with arrears.

Issues considered

Whether service rendered as a Casual Labour Roll (CLR) worker can be counted as qualifying service for pension under the applicable Government Orders and Pension Rules for an employee who later entered service through regular recruitment.
Whether the State Government's denial of pension benefits to the appellant violates the principle of liberal construction of pension provisions as a social‑welfare measure.
Whether Rule 13 of the Kerala Service Rules, which allows counting 50% of prior work service for pension, applies to the appellant’s case.

Legislation cited

Kerala Pension (Gratuity) Rules for SLR Workers/Permanent Labourers of Fisheries Departments. Rule 4(f)(iii)
Kerala Service Ruless. Rule 11, s. Rule 13

Subjects

pensioncasual labour rollseasonal labour rollservice regularisationliberal constructionsocial welfareKerala Service Rulesqualifying servicegovernment orders

Judgment

[2020] 6 S.C.R. 991 991

V. SUKUMARAN A
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010)
AUGUST 26, 2020 B

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pension – Pensionary benefit granted to Casual labour Roll C
(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
D
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 E
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
F
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 G
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
H
991
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H 22][1000-G-H; 1001-A-B]
V. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 993

4. The appellant is being deprived of the maximum A
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 regularisation as SLR workers and who would have,
B
by virtue of joining at a later point of time, rendered less service.
Rule 13 of the Service Rules would possibly come to the aid of
the rationale the Court is seeking to adopt as on absorption in
the establishment, such persons are given the benefit of counting
50 per cent of their earlier work service prior to absorption for
the purposes of pension. [Para 23][1001-C-D] C
5. Thus, the appellant is entitled to succeed in the present
appeal and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The
rejection of the recommendation of the Fisheries Department,
respondent No. 2, by respondent No. 1 was consequently
improper and unsustainable. The benefit of the service rendered D
as a CLR worker would, thus, be liable to be counted for
determining the pensionary benefits of the appellant at par with
other CLR workers and the pension be accordingly calculated.
[Para 24][1001-E-F]
Case Law Reference E
[1983] 2 SCR 165 relied on Para 15
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 582 relied on Para 15
[1971] Suppl. SCR 634 relied on Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3984 F
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2009 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 892 of 2009.
Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr. Adv., A. Venayagam Balan,
Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Advs. for the Appellant. G

Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv. for the Respondents.

H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
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 appellant has
B been claiming his entitlement for the last almost 13 years but
unsuccessfully, despite having worked with Government departments in
various capacities for about 32 years.
The Facts:

C 2. The controversy emanates from the appellant having worked
in these different capacities with two different departments from time to
time, albeit continuously. The appellant joined respondent No. 2,
Department of Fisheries of the State Government of Kerala as a Casual
Labour Roll (for short ‘CLR’) worker on 7.7.1976 in a then pilot project
on Pearl Culture, at Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram. He worked upto
D 29.11.1983 rendering 7 years, 4 months and 23 days of service as a
CLR worker whereupon the District Officer, Kerala Public Service
Commission (for short ‘KPSC’) advised him to join the Revenue
Department, Kannur District as Lower Division Clerk (for short ‘LDC’)
on his participation in a direct recruitment process. He accordingly
E reported for duty on 30.11.1983. On having rendered a few years of
service, the appellant sought an inter-departmental transfer from the
Revenue Department back to the Fisheries Department and returned to
Thiruvananthapuram and joined on 18.9.1987 on probation of two years
with the service being subsequently regularised on 18.9.1989. The
appellant earned his promotion as Upper Division Clerk (Higher Grade)
F (for short ‘UDC’) from which post he retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2008. The total service rendered by the appellant
was about 25 years, but excluding the service as CLR.
Developments:
3. In order to ameliorate the financial remuneration for CLR and
G
Seasonal Labour Roll (for short ‘SLR’) posts, the State Government
passed a slew of Government Orders (for short ‘G.O.’) from time to
time and that is what gave hope and cause of action to the appellant as
he sought the benefits under the same.
4. Some CLR workers were aggrieved by their non-regularisation
H of service, despite a G.O. dated 4.11.1989, which had provided for their
V. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 995
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

absorption as SLR workers if they had rendered 240 days a year of A
service in the Fisheries Department prior to 16.9.1985. On these persons
approaching the High Court, the State Government was asked to address
the issue and on such examination G.O. dated 20.8.1993 was issued
creating 29 SLR posts in the Fisheries Department for absorption of the
existing CLR workers. A G.O. was also issued on 31.3.2001 subsequently
B
noting that these 29 SLR posts were created for such of the CLR workers
who had completed 500 days of work before 1.4.1987, and simultaneously
27 employees in the Fisheries Department, who had worked for the past
20 years and had also completed 8 years as SLR workers were ordered
to be permanently absorbed with consequent pensionary and provident
fund benefits. Subsequently, the service and wage conditions of the SLR C
workers of the Fisheries Department were brought at par with those in
the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Department with effect from
31.3.2001 in pursuance of the G.O. dated 13.7.2006. It was, however,
also stipulated that no new appointments would be made in the Fisheries
Department in the CLR/SLR/HR categories.
D
5. Another significant development was the issuance of G.O. dated
21.8.2006 to the effect that the Pension (Gratuity) Rules of the SLR
Workers/Permanent Labourers of Fisheries Department (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Pension Rules’) were framed to grant pension to
these workers and bringing them at par with those working in the
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Department. The Pension Rules were E
brought with retrospective effect from 31.3.2001. These Pension Rules
were to apply to all those SLR workers/Permanent Labourers of
Departmental Hatcheries/Farms in the Fisheries Department, who were
still in service as well as who had not completed 60 years of age as on
that date. Significantly, Rule 4(f)(iii) of the Pension Rules, inter alia, F
defined that 200 days or more work in a calendar year during the period
of service spent as casual labourer in the departmental farms prior to
permanency would be treated as one year qualifying for pension. The
legal significance was that service rendered as a casual labourer of a
certain number of days was equated with one year of permanent service
for purposes of pension qualification. G

The Cause of the Appellant:
6. In view of the aforesaid developments, the appellant made a
representation dated 27.11.2006 to the Assistant Director of the Fisheries
Department for passing orders to treat his period of CLR service of H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A more than 7 years as qualifying service for pension. In effect what the
appellant claimed was that he should be treated at par with the other
CLR service workers having worked in the Department for the requisite
period of time. A plea of parity was, thus, raised.
7. The appellant, in this representation also made a request to be
B provided with service details of other such workers, and obtained requisite
information which showed that the appellant’s name featured at the 2nd
place out of 6 persons in order of starting of the casual service on the
aforementioned pilot project. Thus, he was very senior. This
representation received favourable consideration by respondent No. 2,
Department of Fisheries with a recommendation being made by the
C Director. In the meantime, another G.O. dated 19.1.2007 was also issued
clarifying that the casual service period of farm labourers would be
counted for calculating qualifying service for pension and requiring all
pension claims to be settled accordingly with prospective effect.
However, the State Government/respondent No. 1 finally did not accept
D the recommendation of the Fisheries Department and rejected the
representation of the appellant vide letter dated 16.5.2007 as according
to the State Government the benefit could not be extended to the appellant
since he was appointed by the KPSC and had not been absorbed in the
Fisheries Department from the CLR service. If one may say, the other
CLR employees who went through the process of regularisation, thus,
E gained the benefit which was sought to be denied to the appellant who
came through a regular employment process through the KPSC.
8. The aforesaid, thus, gave rise to the cause for the appellant to
file writ petition, being WP(C) No. 22931/2007, against the respondents
pertaining to the quantum of pensionary benefits he was to receive at
F the time of retirement with the prayer that his service as a CLR worker
from 7.7.1976 to 29.11.1983 be counted as 8 years of 1 qualifying service
for pension. The claim was predicated on the following grounds:
a. 29 SLR posts were created to regularise those CLR workers
who had completed 500 days of work, and had the appellant
G continued in service of the Fisheries Department, he would
have found a place in one of those 29 posts having worked for
1678 days.

1
Sir, appellant has calculated qualifying service to be 8 years calculating on the basis
H of the 200 days a year criteria per Rule 4(f)(iii) of the Pension Rules.
V. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 997
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

b. The G.O. dated 21.8.2006 provided for 200 or more days of A
work in a calendar year during the period of service as CLR
worker prior to the permanency, calculated as equivalent to
one year regular service qualifying for pension and, thus, the
appellant was entitled to 8 years of qualifying service of pension
on account of his service as CLR worker. B
c. The details sought and disclosed vis-a-vis the other casual
workers vide letter dated 4.12.2006 showed that the appellant
was second senior most person and the first person had got
his CLR service regularised as SLR worker with pension being
granted to him accordingly.
C
d. The rejection by the State Government of the recommendation
of the Fisheries Department was wrongful.
e. The appellant would be entitled to his maximum pensionable
service only if the CLR service was regularised as qualifying
service on parity with his co-workers and had he continued to D
work in the Fisheries Department, he would have undoubtedly
been regularised.
9. Appellant also placed reliance on Rule 13, Part III of the Kerala
Service Rules (for short ‘Service Rules’), which come to his aid, and
read as under: E
“13. Work establishment employees absorbed in regular
establishment will be allowed to count 50 per cent of the work
establishment service for purposes of pension.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”
F
The Respondent’s Stand:
10. The writ petition was sought to be resisted on the ground that
the benefit of G.O. dated 21.8.2006 was available only to those CLR
workers who were regularised as SLR workers and none of the G.O.s
would govern the appellant. The benefit of Rule 4(f)(iii) of the Pension
G
Rules was pleaded to be not extendable to the appellant and all these
would have applied had he continued to work as a CLR worker for the
Fisheries Department. The appellant was, however, appointed by the
KPSC and not absorbed in the department from the CLR service and
for this the rules of pension were entirely different as under Part II of
the Service Rules. H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 11. We may note the stand of the appellant in respect of the
aforesaid was that insofar as 29 SLR posts were concerned, only 27
workers in the Fisheries Department were absorbed and, thus, he would
have been easily absorbed against the two remaining posts, more so on
account of his seniority.
B The View of the High Court:
12. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the
order dated 16.1.2009 primarily on the ground that the appointment of
the appellant to the Revenue Department was in pursuance of his selection
by the KPSC and, thus, he could not compare himself with the CLR
C workers, who had obtained regularisation as SLR workers and were
governed by various G.O.s. The appellant had not been absorbed in the
Fisheries Department from the category of CLR workers. There was
no G.O. or provision under the relevant rules for counting the period of
service as CLR worker of persons like the appellant who secured
appointment through the KPSC as an LDC. No declaration had been
D made under Rule 11 of the Service Rules in Part III and in the absence
of such declaration the appellant could not take the benefit of the G.O.s.
The relevant portion of the Rule reads as under:
“11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10, the Government
may
E
(1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall qualify
for pension; and
(2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as they may
think fit to impose in each case, allow service rendered by an employee
F to count for pension.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”
13. The appellant being naturally aggrieved preferred an appeal,
being W.A. No. 892/2009, which endeavour was also unsuccessful as
the said appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.6.2009.
G Once again, the basis was the same as the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge that CLR service was not provided as qualifying service
for the purposes of grant of pension in cases like the appellant, who
joined the Revenue Department in pursuance of a recruitment process
of the KPSC and was only transferred to the Fisheries Department by
an inter-departmental transfer at his own request.
H
V. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 999
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Arguments: A
14. The arguments before us have been in the same compass as
what has been specified aforesaid. The appellant pleads that he must be
entitled for service rendered by him of 1678 days as CLR worker of and
that the true intention of the G.O. dated 20.8.1993 should be given effect
to, being a decision taken in the interest of the workers. The grounds set B
out hereinabove for the claim of the appellant in para 8 were, once
again, repeated before us.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant also sought to emphasise
that pension is a right vested in a Government servant and is not a bounty
payable at the will and pleasure of the Government as also that pension C
is a social welfare measure and a post retirement entitlement; something
with which we began our order. (D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of
India2 U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors.3; Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 4).
16. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the
respondents, once again, that the appellant could not be treated at par D
with those CLR workers, who were absorbed as SLR workers vide
G.O. dated 20.8.1993 as the concept of regularisation of long and
continuous service giving benefit to casual employees could not be equated
with a casual employee getting a permanent job through KPSC. The
appellant had been enjoying the benefits as a direct recruit to a higher E
post since 1983, which were not available to his other original co-workers
till 2001 when they were regularised by the G.O. dated 31.3.2001. Had
the inter-departmental transfer to the Fisheries Department not have
taken place, the appellant in any case would not have been in a position
to lay a claim.
F
Conclusion:
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy
before us, albeit in a limited contour. Leave was granted in this matter
on 23.4.2010 but the matter has seen its fate of hearing only after a
decade despite hearing being expedited when leave was granted!
G
18. We are unable to accept the rationale and reasoning of the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
2
(1983) 1 SCC 305
3
(2006) 9 SCC 630
4
1971(2) SCC 330 H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

A 19. We begin by, once again, emphasising that 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 retired Government employee to live with dignity in his
winter of life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied
B
to an employee, more so on technicalities.
20. While looking into the facts and circumstances of the case,
there is no dispute about the time period spent by the appellant as a CLR
worker and his being at serial No. 2 for grant of pensionary benefits in
the list of details of CLR workers had he continued as one. The appellant
C was able to advance his career by going through a process of direct
recruitment by the KPSC successfully. It is not a case of some
unreasonable or improper benefit being extended to the appellant but
that he competed against others and was successfully recruited.
21. It is also not in dispute that he was transferred to the Fisheries
D Department albeit at his own request and demitted office from there
after earning promotion. 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
E regularisation but were regularised in the Fisheries Department to provide
better working conditions and monetary benefits to the employees. Can
it really 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? The answer,
in our view, is in the negative, as it would amount to whittling away long
F years of service as a CLR worker of 1678 days (7 years 4 months and
23 days).
22. 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
G 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
H these were filled in. It is thus not even a case where no post existed or
V. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 1001
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

that it would affect anybody else, or that the Government would be A
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 aforesaid
B
facts.
23. What also weighs with us is that 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 C
regularisation as SLR workers and who would have, by virtue of joining
at a later point of time, rendered less service. We also feel that Rule 13
of the Service Rules would possibly come to the aid of the rationale we
seek to adopt as on absorption in the establishment, such persons are
given the benefit of counting 50 per cent of their earlier work service D
prior to absorption for the purposes of pension.
24. We are, thus, of the view that for all the aforesaid reasons, the
appellant is entitled to succeed in the present appeal and the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside. We also find that the rejection of the
recommendation of the Fisheries Department, respondent No. 2, by E
respondent No. 1 was consequently improper and unsustainable. The
benefit of the service rendered as a CLR worker would, thus, be liable
to be counted for determining the pensionary benefits of the appellant at
par with other CLR workers and the pension be accordingly calculated.
The arrears of pension be remitted to the appellant within a maximum
period of eight (8) weeks from today with admissible interest as applicable F
to outstanding pension amounts.
25. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed. G

H