IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 OP.No. 21806 of 2001(U) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- T.E. KUMARAN, THEKKE EDATHIL HOUSE, P.O. ORKKATTERI, VATAKARA - 673 501. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP.No. 21806 of 2001(U) -2- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 35506/2001 IN OP. NO. 21806/2001 DISMISSED 22/06/2011 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ...3/- OP.No. 21806 of 2001(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 3001/98/ FIN DT. 25.11.98. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 2.10.99. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 3.3.00. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 8.4.00. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER NO. 90740/PWC.A1/99/FIN DT. 19.1.01. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. G2/20805/99 DT. 5.1. 01. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 21806 of 2001-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner who retired from service as Deputy Director of Treasuries on 31.5.1997. What is projected is the alleged anomaly in the revision of pension. The revision of pension was effected in the year 1998 as per G.O.(P) No.3001/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998 and by G.O. (P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998, the pay revision was also effected. According to the petitioner, consequent on the issuance of Ext.P1, there arose three categories of pensioners. The contention raised is that the persons like the petitioner had to suffer monetary loss upon the implementation of the same. After the rejection of the representation submitted by the petitioner, this original petition has been filed. 2. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the whole aspects have been explained. It is stated that the petitioner who retired on 31.5.1997, could draw revised scale of pay only for three months. If the petitioner had retired before 1.3.1997 and was drawing the salary at the rates actually drawn by him on the pre-revised scale of pay till 31.5.1997, he would have got revised basic pension at the rate of Rs.4,835/- per op 28106/2001 2 month. At the same time, he would not have got the substantial increase in his DCRG and commuted value of pension which he got on account of his having retired after 1.3.1997. If the petitioner had retired on 28.2.1997, and his pay till 28.2.1997 alone is reckoned for calculation of his pre-revised pension, his pension would have been revised as per the statement shown in page 7 of the counter affidavit, and going by the same, the revised basic pension would have been Rs.4,800/-. Thus, it is pointed out that he would have received Rs.164/- more than his existing revised pension of Rs.4,636/-. But at the same time, he would not get the substantial amount of DCRG and commuted value of pension as now obtained. 3. Evidently, therefore, the petitioner is also the beneficiary of the order of the pay revision and revision of pension which has resulted in some benefits to him. The revision of pension and the revision of pay scales are carried out by the State periodically. Therefore, it is not a case where the pensioners are treated in different classes for extending the various benefits. Different benefits are granted by the executive orders which are issued from time to time. It is not a case where an existing benefit allowed to a class of people including the petitioner, was revised and the petitioner was kept out of the scheme by refusing the benefit. The revision of pension and scale of pay were effected from 1.3.1997. As op 28106/2001 3 regards pensioners who could not enjoy the revised pay for ten months prior to retirement, provision was there in Ext.P1 to neutralise it. There is nothing illegal and arbitrary in the order. The original petition fails and hence the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ op 28106/2001 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 21806 of 2001-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 22nd day of June, 2011.