Dismissed

K.P.Govindan v. the Principal Secretary to the Got.

Kerala HC8 Jul 2009WP(C)/2218/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A circus artist filed a writ petition contending that the Government of Kerala was arbitrary in delaying pension disbursement for 179 artists until February 2005, when the State Level Pension Committee had decided to pay from May 2000. The court held that fixing the effective date of pension is an administrative discretion vested with the Government considering financial capacity and is not arbitr

What did the court decide?

null

K.P.Govindan Vs the Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 2218 of 2006(L)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

K.P. GOVINDAN,

¶10

CONVENOR, CIRCUS CULTURAL FORUM, PEER ROAD, THALASSERY, DIST. KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION, SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, VELLAVAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU T.K.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.2218/2006-L:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.201/80/T.A.D DTD. 15/05/1980 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE NO. 23 DTD. 03/06/1980.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/09/97 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRKA REVENUE INSPECTOR, THALASSERY.

¶23

EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/05/97 ISSUED TO POOVADAN PREMA BY THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY.

¶24

EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/05/98 ISSUED TO K. SULOCHANA BY THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY.

¶25

EXT.P.2.C: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 04/11/97 ISSUED TO K. RADHA BY THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY.

¶26

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.81/2005/G.E.D. DTD.11/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION (SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE CIRCUS CULTURAL FORUMN, THALASSERY.

¶28

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/12/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENS 1 AND 2.

¶29

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/08/2007 OF THE UNDER SECRETARY ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.269/2006/G. E.D. DTD. 01/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION (SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

W.P(C) No.2218 of 2006

¶37

Dated, 8th day of July, 2009

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is a circus artist who receives

¶40

government pension awarded to disabled circus artists and he claimed to be the Convener of Circus Cultural Forum, Thalassery. His grievance is that while the Government sanctioned for payment of pension to 179 Circus Artists, the same was ordered to be given only with effect from February, 2005, whereas the State Level Circus Pension Committee has decided and advised to pay the said pension on 22.5.2000. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P6, by which, the above request of the petitioner was declined by the Government. It is also prayed for a declaration that the circus artists who are members of the forum are entitled to get pension with retrospective effect from 22.5.2000.

¶41

WPC 2218/06

¶42

-:2:-

¶43

According to the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for him, as evidenced by Ext.P3, the Government has decided to pay the pension with effect from February, 2005 on the basis of the scheme as contemplated by Ext.P1 and as decided by the State Level Pension committee which met on 22.5.2000. The case of the petitioner is that though the Committee which met on 22.5.2000 decided to disburse the pension with effect from 22.5.2000, the government has decided to disburse the same only from February, 2005, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Ext.P7, when the Government has decided to disburse pension to 72 Circus Artists, the very same government has decided to pay the amount with effect from the date of decision of the State Level Circus Pension Committee. But the same criteria was not taken in the case of 179 artists, mentioned in Ext.P3 order. Therefore, it is prayed for a declaration that the 179 circus artists ,whose names given in Ext.P3, are entitled

¶44

WPC 2218/06

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

to get pension with effect from the decision of the State Level Pension Committee in its meeting held on 22.5.2000.

¶47

The Government has filed a counter affidavit stating that as per Rules, which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P1, no cut of date was fixed by the scheme, especially, as per para 12 of the above rules, government have the discretion to make any amendment and relaxation to the above rules. Therefore, the pension sanctioning authority, i.e., the government have the discretion to fix the effective date for commencement of pension after taking stock of the factors such as availability of funds/budget provisions etc. It is also stated that while passing Ext.P3, Government has decided to pay pension with effect from February, 2005 and Ext.P3 has no retrospective effect. It is also stated that the petitioner's representations were properly considered and such requests cannot be allowed as Ext.P3 has no retrospective effect.

¶48

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶49

WPC 2218/06

¶50

-:4:-

¶51

petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader and also perused the materials produced in this case.

¶52

Admittedly, though the scheme was formulated during the year 1980 for the first time, the pension was allowed as per Ext.P3 with effect from February, 2005. As discernible from Ext.P3, the State Level Committee fialised the question regarding the payment of pension to 179 Circus Artists as per its decision dated 12.1.2005, and the Government has decided to pay the pension with effect from February, 2005, ie., the next month from the date of the final decision taken on 12.1.2005. Government while issuing Ext.P3 was aware of the fact that the scheme has come into force on 15.5.1980 and as per the meeting held on 22.5.2000 the pension committee considered recommendations submitted by the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs and decided to grant pension and the said decision were finalised by the meeting of the State Level Circus Pension Committee held on 14.7.2004 and 12.1.2005. The government after

¶53

WPC 2218/06

¶54

-:5:-

¶55

considering those aspects decided to pay the pension with effect from February, 2005. As stated in the counter affidavit, it is for the Government to consider its financial capacity and commitments and to decide the payment of the pension. As no date is fixed in Ext.P1 rule, especially, when the discretion is given to the government for fixing the effective date for commencement of pension, it cannot be held that the decision of the Government to disburse the pension with effect from February 2005 is arbitrary or illegal.

¶56

Though As per Ext.P7 it was decided to give pension to 72 persons mentioned therein, with effect from 4.7.2005, it cannot be stated that the government has decided to pay pension to the persons mentioned therein with effect from the date of the decision of the State Level Committee. As stated earlier, the cut of date regarding commencement of the pension is an administrative question purely vested with the Government. It is also pointed out that decision of the Government regarding the

¶57

WPC 2218/06

¶58

-:6:-

¶59

cut of date for commencement of pension can be taken only after taking stock of the financial position and other financial commitments etc. In such situation, it cannot be said that the date fixed under Ext.P3 is illegal or arbitrary.

¶60

In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶61

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

kvm/-

WPC 2218/06

-:7:-

V.K.MOHANAN, J .

O.P.No.

JUDGMENT

Dated:..

K.P.Govindan v. the Principal Secretary to the Got.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Govindan v. the Principal Secretary to the Got.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyamma Abraham Vs Union of India

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker Vs State Bank of Tranvancore

V.X.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

T.Sreedharan Vs Air Ports Authority of India

C.Vijayan Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Panangadu Chowkkekadavu Oonai Udama S. Vs State of Kerala