Dismissed

P.K.Prabhakara Kurup v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC16 Jul 2013WA/1184/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appellant's writ appeal seeking enhanced Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity and pension commutation based on Government Orders extending to 1.3.1997. The Court held that these benefits were specifically for government employees, while the appellant, under the UGC Scheme, was governed by separate orders that did not confer such retirement benefits.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.K.Prabhakara Kurup Vs State of Kerala and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013/25TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶6

WA.No. 1184 of 2010

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3892/2004 DATED 09-06-2010

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/(PETITIONER THE WPC):

¶9

P.K.PRABHAKARA KURUP,

¶10

S/O.THE LATE M.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER (RETIRED), ZAMORIN'S GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT

¶11

'AMBADI', ERANJIKKAL P.O., ELATHUR VIA

¶12

KOZHIKOD

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)

¶14

SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA

¶15

SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM)

¶16

RESPONDENTS/(RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC):

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶21

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SUNIL CYRIAC

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2013, THE COURT ON 16-07-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WA.No. 1184 of 2010

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

APPELLANTS ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE I : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.I.22/97 U.I DT 27.7.199+8 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) NEW DELHI ALONG WITH COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE UGC

¶27

ANNEXURE II : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. F.I 22/97 U.I DATED 6.11.1998 OF THE GOVERNMENT INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) ANNEXURE III : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE OF THE APPELLANT DATED 31.5.1996

¶28

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

jma

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶33

Writ Appeal No.1184 of 2010 -------------------------------------------Dated this, the 16^th day of July, 2013

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

K.Vinod Chandran, J.:

¶36

The appellant, who superannuated from service on 31.5.1996 as Selection Grade Lecturer, claims enhanced commutation of pension as per the revision of scales brought in by Ext.P10, made effective from 1.1.1996 and also payment of DCRG by virtue of enhancement of the maximum limit from Rs.80,000/- to Rs 2,80,000/- as provided in Ext.P9. The claim of the appellant was that Ext.P9 provided for revision in pensionary benefits with effect from 1.3.1997 and the said date having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, fixation of such date, results in discrimination in so far as creating two class of pensioners, i.e., one who have retired prior to 1.3.1997 and others who have retired after 1.3.1997. The learned Single Judge, however, found that there is no discrimination in so far as there was an altogether new scheme of revision of pay introduced with effect from 1.3.1997, in the Government Service, as a consequence of which Ext.P9 came to be issued providing

¶37

W.A 1184 of 2010 2

¶38

revision of pensionary benefits as also enhancement in the maximum limits of DCRG. The entitlement to commutation of pension to the extent of the revision granted in UGC Scheme, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996 as per Ext.P10 was also negated.

¶39

We have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. O.V Radhakrishnan and Special Government Pleader (Finance) Sri. Sunil Syriac. The learned Senior counsel would contend that the primary fallacy which the learned Single Judge committed is in finding that the revision of pay was a new scheme, while the appellant had been continuing under the UGC Scheme from 1986 onwards. In fact, the appellant had joined the College from which he superannuated as a Junior Lecturer in the year 1969 and was also granted due promotions. While the appellant was continuing as Professor Grade I (Non-cadre), the Government by G.O dated 23.1.1991 decided to implement the University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986 and the appellant was absorbed in the said scheme and re-designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade); from which post he retired on 31.5.1996.

¶40

After retirement, Ext.P9 was brought into force by the Government granting some benefits of revision of pension with effect from 1.3.1997. According to the appellant such revision is

¶41

W.A 1184 of 2010 3

¶42

not applicable to him, in so far as the appellant was not a Government employee and was a Lecturer under the UGC Scheme. What was applicable to him is the implementation of the revised scale of pay under the UGC Scheme of 1998 made as per Ext.P10. Ext.P10 made the revised scale of pay admissible to various categories of teachers, effective from 1.1.1996; the date prior to the retirement of the appellant. The appellant hence was entitled to the revised scale of pay between 1.1.1996 and 31.5.1996, which was granted to him. The appellant contends that he was also entitled to commutation of pension as he would be entitled to the same on the revised last pay drawn by him as on the date of superannuation. Further, the appellant's claim is that Ext.P9 order revised the ceiling of maximum amount of DCRG payable from Rs.80,000/- to 2,80,000/- with effect from 1.3.1997 and the persons who were regulated by the UGC scheme, not being entitled to any revision as on 1.3.1997, it is the contention that the benefit of enhancement of maximum limit should enure to the persons who were drawing pay under the UGC Scheme also. DCRG hence has to be computed on the basis of revision of the scale of pay effective from 1.1.1996. It is the further contention of the appellant that this does not create any

¶43

W.A 1184 of 2010 4

¶44

serious financial liability on the Government, since, Ext.P10 order provides that financial assistance will be provided to the State Governments which implements the UGC Scheme of 1998, including revision of pay scales, to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure. More precisely, the DCRG element which the appellant is entitled to on the basis of revision of pay as per Ext.P10, would be borne by the Central Government, to the extent of 80%.

¶45

The learned Special Government Pleader, per contra, would contend that Ext.P9 is not an additional benefit conferred under the existing scheme but has been brought in as a consequence of the pay revision effected in the Government as on 1.3.1997 by G.O(P)3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. He specifically points out, Clause 23 wherein it is stated that the orders will be applicable to College teachers who come under the UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Scheme scales of pay. The fitment benefit has been made applicable to the pre-1.3.1997 pensioners/family pensioners as provided in Ext.P9 Government Order itself. But, however, ceiling on DCRG has been enhanced only with effect from 1.3.1997, making it clear that only persons who retired on or after 1.3.1997 and entitled for

¶46

W.A 1184 of 2010 5

¶47

revision of pay would be entitled to such enhanced maximum limit. The revision of pay brought in, would make the maximum limit of DCRG at Rs.80,000/-, prescribed on the basis of the prerevised scale; insignificant and there would be a total lack of nexus in the DCRG entitlement and revised last pay drawn and this was sought to be ameliorated by raising the ceiling of DCRG, is the contention. This would not be applicable to those pensioners who retired on the pre-revised scale of pay. Ext.P10 was a revision of pay scale granted to the persons continuing in the UGC Scheme made effective from 1.1.1996 and there cannot be any further claim for DCRG or commutation of pension since Ext.P10 confines itself to the pay drawn under the UGC Scheme and does not at all take in any benefits, like DCRG or pension payable. The 80% financial assistance with respect to the additional expenditure is also with respect to pay revision and that is made clear by the fact that Clause (c) of Ext.P10 limits such financial assistance for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. Exts.P9 and P10 cannot at all be correlated, is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader.

¶48

In fact, it was noticing certain anomalies with respect to the College teachers, who come under UGC/AICTE/Medical

¶49

W.A 1184 of 2010 6

¶50

Education Schemes of pay, that Ext.P11 order was brought in. Ext.P11 took into account the disadvantageous position, these college teachers were placed in, as against State service pensioners/family pensioners whose pay and pensionary benefits were revised with effect from 1.3.1997. This was taken into account by Ext.P11 and certain benefits were granted to Lecturers/Teachers who have retired between 1.1.1996 and 28.2.1997. Hence, the benefits available to Government employees by virtue of the pay revision of 1.3.1997 and the consequent benefits to persons who retired after the said date was made applicable to teachers who come under UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Schemes of pay who were superannuated between 1.1.1996 and 28.2.1997. However, this has been granted on the specific condition that they shall not be entitled to commute that portion of their revised pension or be entitled to the revised rate of DCRG. The learned Special Government Pleader seeks for sustaining the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶51

Exts.P9, P10 and P11 are the basis on which the entire case of the appellant is built. Ext.P9, as has been pointed out is a consequential order to G.O(P) 3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998,

¶52

W.A 1184 of 2010 7

¶53

which brought in a revised pay structure to Government employees with effect from 1.3.1997. Ext.P9, on a reading of the same, does not seek to create two categories of pensioners or discriminate equals in any manner. It provides for fitment benefit to pre-1.3.1997 pensioners/family pensioners also. The order revising the pension is specifically made effective from 1.3.1997 applicable to pensioners in total. However, by virtue of the revision of pay made effective from 1.3.1997, to Government Employees, necessarily their last pay drawn will be more and as a consequence their entitlement of pension also would be more. It is also to be noticed that these orders have been made applicable to college teachers also who come under the UGC scheme. Whether any benefit would enure to them on fitment as contemplated in Ext.P9 is a moot question and the same has not been urged before us. In fact, the specific contention of the learned Senior counsel is that Ext.P9 would not apply to the appellant. If Ext.P9 does not apply to them, then, it cannot be argued that enhancement of ceiling on maximum amounts of DCRG made as per Ext.P9 should be made applicable to college teachers also.

¶54

We now come to Ext.P10, which admittedly, is

¶55

W.A 1184 of 2010 8

¶56

applicable to College Teachers and the appellant has been given such revision of pay as contemplated in Ext.P10 with effect from 1.1.1996. Whether his pension should be re-computed on the basis of the last drawn pay on such revised scale is not in issue, since, admittedly, that also has been done and amounts are disbursed. The dispute is only with respect to the commutation of pay as is applicable for the enhanced pension computed as per Part III, Kerala Service Rules(for short KSR).

¶57

We first look at the commutation aspect. For the purpose of commutation, what is applicable is Appendix X of Part III KSR, which constitute the Pension (Commutation) Rules. Rule 3 entitles commutation of pension for a lump payment, any portion of pension not excluding one-half (as it then stood) subject to a minimum amount being drawn as monthly pension. Rule 6 A provides that the commuted portion of pension shall be restored from the first of the month following the month in which a period of 15 years elapses; as was applicable at the time of the appellant's retirement. Hence, the rational behind such provision is that a person who retires, gets a lump sum amount inter alia to tide over the fall in income by virtue of superannuation and the same is deemed to be recovered in the 15 years from the

¶58

W.A 1184 of 2010 9

¶59

date of commutation, during which period, the pensioner draws a lesser amount of pension than that he is entitled to. That portion which is withheld from him for 15 years is restored after the said period.

¶60

The appellant admittedly, retired on 31.5.1996, and he has also commuted the pension calculated as on that date. The appellant's present claim is that on the enhanced amount of last drawn pay, as is fixed by Ext.P10, commutation has to be granted to him. Obviously, now, it is 17 years from the date of appellant's retirement. Even if we go by Ext.P10 revision and the date of probable commutation is taken as sometime in the year 2000, then also we are 13 years from that date. What purpose would be served in making such a declaration, especially, in the context of the appellant having admittedly drawn the full revised pension, computed on the last pay drawn, in the revised scale? We are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the appellant with respect to commutation, on that short ground. The said claim, according to us, is no more alive for consideration, by reason only of passage of time and the appellant having drawn the full pension in this intervening period.

¶61

W.A 1184 of 2010 10

¶62

Now, we come to the claim of DCRG in accordance with the enhancement of maximum limit as per Ext.P9. As has been specifically pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is pertinent that Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 are independent orders, which cannot be intermingled or co-related. One order cannot lead to grant of benefit flowing from the other. Ext.P9 is a pay revision applicable to all pensioners with effect from 1.3.1997; the pre-1.3.1997 pensioners being given fitment as per the scheme provided therein and the post 1.3.1997 pensioners on the basis of their revised pay. As was noticed earlier, we are not concerned with such fitment. Ext.P10 is a pay revision order applicable to college teachers covered under the schemes of UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Scheme. Ext.P10 relates only to pay of such college teachers and we cannot understand it as making any statement with respect to the retirement benefit due to a college teacher under the UGC Scheme. Though, as an incentive to implement the scheme, the Central Government has agreed to provide financial assistance to the extent of 80% on the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision, we cannot take it as being taking into account the enhanced retirement benefits which enure to the retirees by

¶63

W.A 1184 of 2010 11

¶64

virtue of such pay revision. We immediately notice that even the financial assistance is confined to the period between 1.1.1996 and 31.3.2000. If we accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that even 80% of the DCRG will be borne by the Central Government that would lead to a situation where the enhancement in the retirement benefits by virtue of the pay revision at Ext.P10, to persons superannuating between 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 would be borne to the extent of 80% by the Central Government. That is not the intend or purport of the concession granted by the Central Government.

¶65

At the risk of repetition, we again take into account the specific contention of the learned senior counsel that Ext.P9 is not applicable to the College teachers covered under the specified schemes. Though clause 23 makes it applicable to such college teachers also, we are not sure as to whether any fitment was granted to the appellant being a pre-1.3.1997 pensioners. Anyway that is not the subject matter of the dispute in the present writ petition. In any event, it is clear that Ext.P9 was brought in, as a consequence of the pay revision order in the Government service with effect from 1.3.1997. Definitely, the pay revisions granted therein would not be applicable to the

¶66

W.A 1184 of 2010 12

¶67

appellants or similarly placed college teachers. This pay revision and the consequential revision in pension, is the new scheme referred to by the learned Single Judge. In any event, the appellant does not have a claim that such new scheme is applicable to the appellant or similarly placed persons. The claim for pay revision of the appellant is sourced from Ext.P10, which revised the pay scales of college teachers with effect from 1.1.1996.

¶68

Ext.P10 does not at all deal with retirement benefits nor does the UGC scheme, 1998 or the Government orders, read in Ext.P10, provide that the burden of retirement benefits of college teachers covered under UGC scheme, is that of the Central Government; to the extent of 80% or otherwise. The liability for retirement benefits even for the period of 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 is squarely upon the State. While Ext.P10 revises the pay scales, necessarily the pension has to be computed on the basis of the last pay drawn in the revised pay scale. The appellant's entitlement to pension however is sourced from Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Neither does Ext.P10 speak of computation of DCRG nor does the revision of pay scale as per Ext.P10 confer any right of computation of DCRG on the

¶69

W.A 1184 of 2010 13

¶70

appellant; divorced from the provisions of Part III KSR. Rule 68 of Part III KSR prescribes the maximum amount of gratuity payable under the Rule to be limited to Rs.80,000/-; as was the provision on the date of the appellant's retirement. The appellant was also granted such maximum amount as DCRG. Any revision in pay and a consequent revision in pension does not entitle the appellant to any higher amount as DCRG, since, the maximum admissible amount has already been disbursed.

¶71

The appellant's contention is that the logic behind enhancing the DCRG by way of Ext.P9 as a consequence of pay revision with effect from 1.3.1997; is the anomaly with respect to the insignificant amount of Rs.80,000/- being disbursed as DCRG while the actual entitlement would be much more even on the computation provided under the KSR; as per the revised pay scales. It is definitely to ameliorate such hardship and do away with such anomaly that the maximum limit was enhanced to Rs.2,80,000/-. But as we have seen and as has been clearly stated in Ext.P9, the revision in pension made as a consequence of revision in pay and the resultant enhancement in maximum limit of DCRG would be applicable to those persons who were granted the revision of pay from 1.3.1997, i.e. the government

¶72

W.A 1184 of 2010 14

¶73

employees. The appellant is not entitled to such benefits.

¶74

The learned Single Judge rightly found that the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S Nakara v. Union of India(1983(1) SCC 305) has been distinguished based on the principle fact situation, in a later decision. In fact, V. Kasthuri v. Managing Director, State Bank of India(1998(8)SCC

¶75

30) , relied on by the appellant was noticed by the learned Single Judge. In V.Kasthuri's case, it was held that if a person entitled to pension retires and subsequent to retirement, the relevant pension scheme is amended, then, necessarily such amendment would be applicable to all pensioners from the date of such amendment, since, the pensioners would constitute a similar class. However, it was also held that in the event of an employee, who on superannuation is not entitled to pension, and subsequently, if pension scheme is brought into force, then, it cannot be gainsaid that such pension scheme would be applicable to all persons who retired earlier; unless the same is expressly made retrospective. Importing the said reasoning to the facts of the instant case, it is evident that Ext.P9 was a scheme, brought in only as a consequence of revision of pay of Government employees made effective from 1.3.1997. What is

¶76

W.A 1184 of 2010 15

¶77

applicable to the pensioners who retired earlier to such revision of pay is the fitment proposed in the scheme. They cannot be equated to the persons who retired after 1.3.1997; who were entitled to the revision of pay granted with effect from 1.3.1997. The DCRG claim, i.e, enhanced maximum limit also is a direct consequence of the revision of pay scales. This has also been specifically made applicable to only those persons who were entitled to the revision of pay made effective from 1.3.1997. As we have already seen, the appellant is not entitled to the revision of pay with effect from1.3.1997 and any entitlement as per Ext.P10 would only be with respect to the fitment as provided therein.

¶78

The appellant's revision of pay was made effective from 1.1.1996 by Ext.P10, which implemented the UGC Scheme, 1998; with effect from that date. This does not create entitlement for enhanced payment of DCRG, beyond the limit provided in Part III KSR. Appellant's claim is that the same logic by which maximum limit of DCRG was enhanced in Ext.P9 ought to have been applied when revision of pay was effected by Ext.P10. Unfortunately this is within the realm of policy and we cannot find any discrimination since, the

¶79

W.A 1184 of 2010 16

¶80

Lecturers/College Teachers who were covered under the UGC Scheme cannot be said to be similar to the Government employees. However, the Government in its wisdom, thought it fit that those teachers/Lecturers covered under the UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Scheme were placed at a disadvantageous position compared with the Government employees who retired after 1.3.1997. Hence, on further examination of the matter, it was ordered that those covered by Ext.P10, whose pay scales have been revised with effect from 1.1.1996 be granted some benefits by merger of dearness allowances and enhancement of the maximum pension admissible. But, when granting such relief it was specifically provided that they shall not be entitled to commute any portion of their revised pension nor will they be entitled to enhanced Death Cum Retirement Gratuity as ordered in Ext.P9. According to the appellant it is Ext.P11, that gave rise to the instant claim and the challenge in the instant case is with respect to the denial of payment of enhanced DCRG. The enhanced DCRG claim is only with respect to Ext.P9 , which appellant and similarly placed lecturers covered under the UGC Scheme is not entitled to.

¶81

W.A 1184 of 2010 17

¶82

The revision of pay for appellant and similarly placed persons are made by Ext.P10, an independent order of the Government applicable only to college teachers under specified schemes. Ext.P10 is an implementation of the UGC scheme of 1998 which does not take in any retirement benefits. The appellant's contention is that UGC scheme 1998 is a mere upgradation of UGC scheme 1986 and hence there is no new scheme introduced, as has been found by the learned Single Judge; does not hold good. The new scheme referred to by the learned Single Judge was GO(P) No.3001/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998, the revision in pay applicable to State Government employees with effect from 1.3.1997 as a consequence of which Ext.P9 revision in pension was also ordered. Neither the revised pay scale, nor the revised pension would be applicable to the appellant or similarly placed persons. Ext.P9 is applicable to the appellant only so far as it provides benefits of fitment to pre 1.3.1997 pensioners.

¶83

The enhancement of maximum limit of DCRG also is made applicable to those who have the benefit of pay revision with effect from 1.3.1997. The appellant's contention is that logically enhancement in DCRG ought to have been granted

¶84

W.A 1184 of 2010 18

¶85

when the college teachers pay was also revised with effect from 1.1.1996. Logically at first flush this may appear to be correct. However, it is for the Government to apply such logic and provide for such benefits by way of executive orders. In fact, no claim for retirement benefits is conferred on the appellant either by Ext.P9 or Ext.P10.

¶86

If the appellant had a claim for enhanced DCRG, up to the maximum limit, then, the appellant ought to have made the same immediately after Ext.P9 dated 25.11.1998. Obviously, no claim was made, since the pay revision was not made applicable to college teachers covered under the UGC Scheme. The pay revision for college teachers under a separate stream, ie., UGC Scheme 1998, which was made applicable by Ext.P10, merely implements the UGC scheme and does not speak off retirement benefits. Even on the implementation of Ext.P10 and the grant of revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, the appellant had no claim for DCRG. Neither was it sought for from the administrative authorities nor was a claim made before any judicial forum.

¶87

On implementation of Ext.P9, the appellant has not raised any such claim. Subsequently, Ext.P10 was introduced

¶88

W.A 1184 of 2010 19

¶89

on 21.12.1999 wherein the UGC Scheme of 1998 was implemented , thus revising the scale of pay of the appellant and the similarly placed lecturers. Even then, the appellant had no claim for DCRG or commutation of pension on the basis of the revised pay scales. It was after more than a year from that in the year 2001 that Ext.P11 extended certain benefits to appellant and similarly placed persons. Such extention of benefits was on the specific condition that commutation will not be permissible and DCRG limit will not be enhanced. We are of the definite opinion that the appellant cannot raise the instant claim at this point of time. This is more so since the benefits flowing from Ext.P11 was intended to alleviate the hardship of the college teachers covered under various schemes, to whom the pay revision and consequent revision of pension granted to government employees were not made available. But such concession was on specific restrictions. The appellant cannot be heard to take advantage of the benefits flowing from Ext.P11 and then assail the restrictive conditions.

¶90

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would place before us ( 2005(6)SCC 754) State of Panjab v. Amarnath Goyal to further contend that the distinction drawn on the

¶91

W.A 1184 of 2010 20

¶92

principle laid down in D.S. Nakara is not applicable in the instant case. On a reading of the said decision, it is clear that the Supreme Court noticed that the fact criterion made applicable to D.S Nakara was “being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date and that was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.”Hence, employees who retired prior to a specified date and retire thereafter were found to be one class of pensioners. It is also trite that this rigid view has been watered down considerably in the latter decisions of the Supreme Court itself. The twin tests of classification founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and the differentia having a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved survives the onslaught of time. ( State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75), D.S Nakara v. Union of India (1983(1) SCC 305), John Valamattom v. Union of India (2003 (6) SCC 611), Food Corporation of Indai v. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh (2012 (2) SCC 307 ).

¶93

However, just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals cannot be treated equally. Ext.P9 was brought in as a consequence of a revision of pay with effect from 1.3.1997. Even

¶94

W.A 1184 of 2010 21

¶95

the Government employees who retire prior to 1.3.1997 and subsequent to that date cannot be treated as belonging to the same class. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant or similarly placed persons who were not entitled to any revision of pay on 1.3.1997 should be granted benefits flowing from Ext.P9. The claim that DCRG enhancement granted to Government employees ought to have been applied to the different class of employees who were covered under the UGC Scheme is a plea based on logic, and cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness.

¶96

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ appeal is devoid of merit and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with, in any manner. The claim of commutation of pension based on revised pay and the enhancement of DCRG limit cannot be sustained.

¶97

Writ appeal fails and is dismissed, however, without costs.

¶98

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶99

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, jma/ //true copy// Judge.

¶100

P.A to Judge

P.K.Prabhakara Kurup v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.K.Prabhakara Kurup v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh M Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Other

Institute of Human Resources Development Vs Biju C.

Abdul Samad Vs the Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad

Sthanuprasad Vs Sreekumar

Dr.P.Sureshkumar Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

K.K.Francis Vs State Bank of India