Allowed

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai v. State and Others

Kerala HC12 Dec 2011WP(C)/1223/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired clerk C. sought re-fixation of pension to prevent reduction by splitting amount into pension and personal allowance. Court held a revised pension cannot be less than pre-revised pension for DA calculation. Petition allowed with directions to repay arrears.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; pension fixed at Rs.3,186/- with DA on full amount; arrears to be paid within two months.

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai Vs State and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1223 of 2006(U)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

SRI.T.N.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS, RTD. U.D.CLERK, N.S.S.COLLEGE, PANDALAM, RESIDING AT MUNYAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE, THURUTHIMEL, NEDUVARAMOODU.P.O, KODUKULANJI VIA., CHENGANNUR-PIN 689508.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT.OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

R1 TO 4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

svs

¶20

W.P.(C). NO. 1223/2006

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PRE-REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ORDER.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.373/99(6)/FIN. DATED 02/02/1999 RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D-1/10552/03 DATED 13/05/04 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.3001/98/FIN. DATED 25/11/1998.

¶28

P6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 05/02/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE PENSIONER'S UNION BEFORE THE EMPOWERED COMMITTEE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT.

¶29

P7: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION NO.12517/PEN.2/2004/FIN. ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

P8: REVIEW PETITION DATED 04/07/2004 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH A PRAYER TO CURE THE ANOMALY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PROPOSAL FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PENSION FIXATION RULES ITSELF.

¶31

P9: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION NO.12517/PEN.B2/04/FI. DATED 30/12/2004.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.1223 of 2006

¶38

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2011

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioner retired as a U.D. Clerk (Hr. Gr) from the office of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam, on 31.3.1997, after 35 ½ years of service. Consequent upon his retirement, the monthly pension was fixed as Rs.3,186/-. Subsequent to his retirement, the pay revision orders for the year 1997 came into effect retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1997. The pay of the petitioner was revised and consequently the retirement benefits of the petitioner were also revised. But his pension was actually reduced to Rs.3,111/- and Rs.75/- was treated as personal allowance. The result was that, the petitioner would get dearness allowance on his pension only for Rs.3,111/- and not Rs.3,186/-. This appears to be on the basis of Ext.P3 Government order as well as Ext.P9 Government letter. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶41

W.P.(C)No.1223 of 2006

¶42

-2-

¶43

“i) issue a certiorari quashing Ext.P9 Order.

¶44

ii) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 G.O. to the extent it restricts the benefits only to P.A. instead of personal pay and Paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 G.O. in so far as it denies Fitment Benefit to the petitioner who is an immediate post 1.3.97

¶45

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders re-fixing the revised pension of the petitioner consequent to Ext.P2 1997 Pension Revision Orders by assigning him proper fixation of pension on rectification of the anomaly in Ext.P2 revised Pension Payment Orders. Following the recommendation Nos. (vii) & (XV) of Ext.P6 Memorandum so that, at any rate, his revised monthly pension upon 1997 pension revision orders does not fall below the pre-revised pension of Rs.3,186/eligible for future benefits also and direct the respondents accordingly, forthwith.

¶46

iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to draw and disburse the arrears of pensionary benefits arising out of the above said re-fixation of petitioner's revised pension 1997 within a short time limit along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 1.4.1997 till disbursement, within a short time limit.”

¶47

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein the respondent has sought to explain the fixation of pension on pay revision. I am not going into the details of the intricacies of method of refixation of pension. I am of opinion that when pension of a Government servant is revised consequent upon the retrospective pay revision it cannot certainly go below the pre-revised pension. Admittedly, the pre-revised pension of

¶48

-3-

¶49

W.P.(C)No.1223 of 2006

¶50

the petitioner was Rs.3,186/-. When consequent on pay revision, the same was re-fixed it has been reduced to Rs.3,111/-. Of course the difference has been fixed as personal allowance. But that would certainly mean that the petitioner would get DA on his pension only on Rs.3,111/and not on Rs.3,186/-. I am of opinion that for holding that the same would be injustice and unsustainable, no authority

¶51

or any interpretation of any Government order or any Government letter is required. The revision is evidently upward revision. It cannot result in a reduction in pension even for the purpose of calculating dearness allowance. The petitioner does not seek a higher pension. The petitioner only seeks at least payment of pension based on the pre-revised scale, which is admittedly Rs.3,186/-. I am of opinion that, if after implementing the pay revision, the petitioner's pension cannot be increased, it cannot in any event be reduced. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,186/- as his pension with DA on that pension itself and not on a reduced pension of Rs.3,111/- with the balance

¶52

W.P.(C)No.1223 of 2006

¶53

-4-

¶54

Rs.75/- as personal allowance. It is declared so. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears, if any, due to the petitioner shall be paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy//

¶58

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶59

shg/

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai v. State and Others

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

M/S.Kaikara Construction Company Vs South Indian Bank and Others

Abdul Rahiman C.K. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

Sainudeen Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Gener

Najiya Mohammed Vs Pushpalatha

P.J.Antony Vs Jacob Kurian

Y.Stanly Vs State of Kerala