IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 19175 of 1998(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.M. PAREETHKHAN, SHYNI SADANAM, KIZHAKKEKKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.M. KUNJU MOHAMMED, MUTHEDATH HOUSE, KANNANTHODATH LANE, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE), SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED FAZAL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 19175/1998-G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)NO.1088/98/FIN. DATED 23/03/1998, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SECRETARY ON 18/07/98. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.61513/PEN.B1/98/FIN. DATED 11/08/1998 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SECRETARY ON 06/08/98. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 19175 of 1998 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner retired from Government service as Field Supervisor in the Animal Husbandry Department on 31.10.1990 and he is receiving monthly pension from 1.11.1990 onwards. After retirement, the 1st petitioner was re-employed as Life-stock Inspector in the same Department from 1.12.1990 and he continued to work as such till 30.11.1992. The 2nd petitioner retired from the same Department as Live-stock Supervisor on 31.1.1991 and is receiving monthly pension from 1.2.1991 onwards. After retirement, the 2nd petitioner was re-employed as Life Stock Inspector in the same Department for the periods from 16.3.1999 to 16.9.1992 and from 12.1.1993 to 12.7.1993. The petitioners were paid salary in the re- employed post fixed as per Rule 100 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The petitioners' contention in this original petition is that by virtue of Ext.P1 Government order, the petitioners are entitled to the salary in the re-employed post as well as pension. In Ext.P1 it has been specifically stated that those orders will have effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said cut of date fixed. According to the petitioners, retired employees form one class and for the purpose of retirement benefits and re-employment benefits, any artificial discrimination cannot be made between the persons who retired prior to 1.1.1996 and persons who retired from 1.1.1996 o.p.19175/98 2 onwards. 2. The petitioners rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130), in support of this contention that such cut of date is discriminatory. 3. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision of this Court in Ananthasubramanian v. State of Kerala [1996 (2) KLT 69], which laid down that fixation of cut of date is reasonable and rational, as also the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V. AMAR NATH GOYAL AND OTHERS [(2005) 6 SCC 754]. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am of opinion that it is not necessary to go into the contentions raised by both sides in detail in so far as the situation is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopinatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [2004 (3) KLT 290], wherein the applicability of the very same Government order, Ext.P1, had been considered in the case of a District Judge who retired on 31.5.1998 and was appointed as a President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after retirement. In that case, the Division Bench noted that Ext.P1 Government order produced herein was cancelled by the Government as per G.O(P).No.946/2000/Fin dated 7.6.2000 and the Government, in pursuance of that order, restored the pre-1.1.1996 position of Rule 100 of Part III of the KSR. The petitioner therein o.p.19175/98 3 challenged the order passed by the Government and the steps taken for recovery of the amounts which have been paid to him. In that case, there was also a contention to the effect that the petitioner is governed by the rules under the Consumer Protection Act and not by the KSR. After considering the entire matter, the Division Bench held that the pension of the District Judge on superannuation is admittedly governed by the provisions of the KSR just like any other superannuated Government employee. On retirement even if a person is holding the post of President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum it would be treated as a case of re-employment would be governed by the provisions of Rule 100 of Part III of KSR and therefore, the petitioner in that case was not eligible for both salary in the re-employed post and pension, and is entitled to salary as calculated in accordance with Rule 100 of Part III of KSR. The Division Bench repelled the challenge against the Govt. Order dated 7.6.2000 (supra) also. The situation in this case is exactly identical. That being so, with or without the cut of date of 1.1.1996 Ext.P1, cannot be pressed into service by the petitioners in respect of their claim. Therefore, there is no merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.19175/98 4