IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22293 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- B. SREEDHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, RETIRED SUB ENGINEER, RESIDING AT KURAKKAMALA, PADIPPURA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJAMPAZHANJI (POST), VIA. POOVAR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION AUDIT), VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1TOR3 SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22293/2006 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 16/11/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 24/04/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, KSEB DTD. 2/12/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/02/2000. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 20/08/1999 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 22293 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as Sub Engineer on 31.5.2004. By Ext.P1 order, inter alia pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner started drawing pension accordingly. Subsequently by Ext.P2 his pension was revised and it was reduced. This has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB. I do not propose to go into the merits of the reduction in pension made as per Ext.P2 on the short ground that Ext.P2 has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Since pension was sanctioned and it was being drawn by the petitioner, it can be reduced, subject to the provisions relating to the grant of pension only after notice to the pensioner. Such notice has not been issued to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 is quashed. But it is made clear that if the Board is desirous of reducing the WPC. 22293/2006 2 pension of the petitioner, it may be done only with notice and after hearing the petitioner. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/