High Court of Kerala dismissed writ petitions filed by retired members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. Court held that financial implications justify fixing a cut-off date when the State introduces a new pension scheme with retrospective effect, even if it denies benefits to those appointed prior to the cut-off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/24TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.6746 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
SMT.RAJESWARY.K, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O ANIL PRABHA, KAPPACHERY HOUSE, PATTUVAM POST, KANNUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPURATH HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-680 308
BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (WELFARE WING), DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).12114/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 2 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/24TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.12114 OF 2019(L)
PETITIONERS:
1 ADV. N.O.INASU, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.N.I.OUSEPH, NADAKAVUKARAN (H), MAIN ROAD P.O., KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680006.
2 ADV. AJITHAKUMARI C., AGED 51 YEARS W/O.K.RAVI, KRISHNAPADAM, KAUSTHUPAM LANE, PUTHURKARA, AIYANTHUR-680003.
3 ADV. P.MURALEEDHARAN, PURANTHODATH HOUSE, NADAKKATHUZHA P.O., BADAGARA (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673104.
4 ADV. JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS, MADAPAM HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686581.
5 ADV. P.V.PRAKSAN, AGED 53 YEARS, JAYA NIVAS, SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682307.
6 ADV. V.P.ASOKAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUMARAKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686563.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 3 :
7 SMT. LIJU B.NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, SREE SHYLAM, A.R.W.A-4, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
9 SHRI. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM, ARALAMMOOD (VIA), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.
11 ADV. M.S.MARIA JAIN, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.JOLLY JOSEPH, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CMC 32, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA-688524.
12 ADV. K.LATHA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.ADV. K.BABU, SHIVA SURYA, SOUTH GATE, CANAL SIDE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 4 :
ADDL. 3 KRISHNA PILLAI.C.K AGED 64 YEARS, CHENGAZHASSERIL HOUSE, THOTTABHAGAM.P.O., THIRUVALLA-689541.
ADDL. 4 S. SWARNALATHA, ADVOCATE, O/O. NEAR TRAFFIC JUNCTION, PALLAM ROAD, KASARGOD, TRINITY TOWERS, KASARGOD, RESIDING AT SHAKTHI MAHAL, BANK ROAD, KASARGODE.
(ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16-10-2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN WP(C) 12114/2019).
R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU R3-4 BY ADV. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6746/2019(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 5 :
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2021
The petitioners in these two writ petitions, who were members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seek to command the respondents to grant monthly retirement benefit to them, taking into account their service as Member of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 6 :
into force with effect from 24.12.1986. The petitioners were paid only honorarium initially. Pursuant to the representations made from several quarters, the Government issued Ext.P1 (in W.P.(C) No.12114/2019) dated 28.11.2016 granting pension to the retired members of statutory commissions. By Ext.P2 letter (in W.P.(C) No.12114/2019), the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), Government of Kerala clarified that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums can be treated as statutory commissions and the benefit of Ext.P1 G.O. can be extended to them also.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 7 :
01.01.2006, are one and the same. The functions discharged
by the petitioners and those who were appointed after 01.01.2006 were also the same.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 8 :
took up the assignment knowing that it is a non-pensionable assignment. The petitioners cannot aspire for a benefit introduced subsequent to their retirement. The writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 9 :
category of employees while denying the same to another batch, on the ground of financial implication.
Dhingra and others [(2008) 2 SCC 229], the learned counsel contended that introduction of benefit retrospectively or prospectively fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily, dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to differential treatment, is discriminatory.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 10 :
Avirah C.A. and others V. Board of Directors of the
Canara Bank and others [2017 (1) KLT SN 18] and argued that the fixation of cut-off date in the matter of extending the benefit of pension to former members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, is highly illegal and arbitrary, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in the judgment of the Apex Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. State of Manipur and others [AIR 2019 SC 3338] , the Apex Court had categorically held that all the pensioners form a single class and therefore a classification for the purpose of grant of pension is unreasonable.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019 : 11 :
the Apex Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 664] has also upheld the rationale for fixing cut-off date based on relevant considerations. Since Ext.P1 brings into effect a new Scheme, retired members like the petitioners cannot put up a case based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contended the learned Government Pleader.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 12 :
enjoying the benefit of the Scheme ordinarily. However, when a new Scheme is introduced, the governmental authorities have a right to consider various aspects including the financial burden on the public exchequer and availability of funds and fix a cut-off date for beneficiaries.
“ 10. Nakara's judgment (AIR 1983 SC 130) has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalised all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalisation and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalisation on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 13 :
has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc. It must be realised that in the case of an employee governed by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. That is the reason why this Court in Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) drew a distinction between liberalisation of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received the lump sum
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 14 :
payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the pension scheme and those belonging to the CPF scheme has been rightly emphasised by this Court in Krishena's case (AIR 1990 SC 1782) (supra). ”
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 15 :
cut-off date. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that introduction of such cut-off date is discriminatory. But, it has to be noted that in S. R. Dhingra and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with an amendment to an existing Scheme wherein the cut-off date was introduced. In the case of the petitioners herein, the claim is for a retrospective operation of a newly introduced Scheme.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 16 :
employees compulsorily retired on or after 01.11.1993 would be eligible for pension at a rate not less than 2/3rd . The petitioner therein was an employee who was compulsorily retired before 01.11.1993. This Court held that after fixing a cut-off date 01.01.1986 for introduction of the pension scheme, the bank authorities were not justified in dividing the employees who were compulsorily retired before and after 01.11.1993 and it amounts to division of a homogenous group, which has no rational or nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is in such circumstances that this Court held that the cut-off date of 01.11.1993 is arbitrary and discriminatory. The said judgment would not be of any help to the petitioners.
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 17 :
of grant of pension.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merits in the contentions of the petitioners. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/11.01.2021
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 18 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6746/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT NO 9072/C1/2001/F.SC & CA DATED 5.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 9.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRRESSAL FORUM AT KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.175/2016 FIN DATED 28.11.2016 ISSUED BY FINANCE (WELFARE WING) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER NO. A 397/17 DATED 5.4.2017 SENT BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT CDRF, KANNUR TO THE SECRETARY CDRC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P5
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F 856/17 DATED 20.4.2018 REJECTING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
WP(C) Nos.6746 & 12114 of 2019
: 19 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12114/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.175/ 2016/FIN. DATED 28.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WW1/7/2017/FIN DATED 17.03.2017.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/4/21997 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (C) DEPARTMENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/04/1997 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND VICIL SUPPLIES (c) DEPARTMENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.
SR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a cut-off date can be prescribed in a newly introduced pension scheme introducing retrospective benefits even without nexus with object of grant.
Whether fixing different cut-off dates for members appointed before and after a date in a new scheme violates Article 14.
Whether financial incapacity can justify classification of pensioners for a new scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. S. R. Dhingra and others [(2008) 2 SCC 229]Distinguished¶75
Mohammad Basheer A. v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (1) KLT SN 118]Distinguished¶77
Avirah C.A. and others V. Board of Directors of the Canara Bank and others [2017 (1) KLT SN 18]Distinguished¶80
All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. State of Manipur and others [AIR 2019 SC 3338]Referred¶81
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 664]Applied¶84
Rajeswary.K
N.O.Inasu
State of Kerala
Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission
N. Nagareth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
