IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 21475 of 1999(F) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. N. MUTHULEKSHMI, WIFE OF M. SREENIVASAN, RESIDING AT 'ROHINI' T.C.14/1008, MALLOOR NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.P. PONNAMMA, WIFE OF GEORGE, RESIDING AT 'MOOTHEDAN', T.C. 17/1293-3, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.P. NAPOLEON, S/O. PATHROSE, RESIDING AT 'KADHRA', HOUSE NO.KRA.115, KOIKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K. ASOKA KUMAR, SON OF KUNJURAMAN, RESIDING AT 'SRUTHI', T.C.16/1943(1), PANAVILA ROAD, OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.V.JOSEPH MR. A.GNANA PRAKASAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 21475 of 1999. ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.35475 OF 1999 IN O.P.NO.21475 OF 1999 CLOSED. 17.2.2009. SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF KERALA GOVT. ORDER G.O.(P) NO.3001/98 DTD 25.11.1988. EXT.P2: COPY OF EXTRACT OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATE PAY REVISION COMMITTEE REPORT. EXT.P3: COPY OF STATEMENT ESTABLISHING THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IN PENSION BETWEEN PRE-REVISION PENSIONERS AND POST PAY REVISION PENSIONERS. EXT.P4: COPY OF EXTRACTS FROM THE FIFTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT. EXT.P5: COPY OF CENTRAL GOVT. ORDER F.NO.15/10/98 P&PW(A) DTD 17.12.1998. EXT.P6: COPY OF LIST OF STATES WHICH HAVE SANCTIONED CENTRAL PARITY TO PENSIONERS. EXT.P7: COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING FIXATION OF PENSIONS ON NOTIONALLY FIXING THE PAY AT VARIOUS PAY REVISIONS UPTO 1-3-92 LEVEL. EXT.P8: COPY OF COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PRESENT MONTHLY PENSION OF SECTION OFFICERS/SENIOR SUPERINTENDENTS AND EQUATED CATEGORIES (LOWEST GAZETTED POST) RETIRED DURING VARIOUS PAY REVISION PERIODS FROM 1973. (SERIES 3 IN NUMBER) EXT.P9: COPY OF EDITORIALS APPEARED IN DAILIES VIZ. KERALA KAUMUDI DT. 1-7-98, MALAYALA MANORAMA DT.16-7-98, MATHRUBHOOMI DT. 1-8-98. EXT.P10: COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE NATIONAL POLICY ON ORDER PERSONS “ AS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL 'PENSIONERS' ADOVACATE” VOL.XX ISSUE 2 DT. JUNE 1999. EXT.P11: SERIES (4 IN NUMBER) PHOTO COPY OF FACT SHEETS RELATING TO PETITIONERS. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.21475 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are Government employees, who retired prior to 1.3.1997. With effect from 1.3.1997, the Government revised pension due to Government servants. But in the matter of granting the benefits, persons, who retired on or after 1.3.1997 and before 1.3.1997, were treated differently. That is the grievance raised by the petitioners in this original petition. A similar original petition namely, O.P.No.16327/99 raising identical issues has been disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 24.7.2007 thus:- 'G.O.(P).No.3001/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998 was issued by the Government of Kerala in relation to revision of pension and other related benefits consequent on revision of pay scales from 1.3.1997. The petitioners who retired from service of the State of Kerala before 1.3.1997 contend that the provision made in clause (3) of that Government Order, conferring on such beneficiaries only fitment benefits, is unconstitutional and results in hostile discrimination. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in D.S. Nakara and Others V. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130), with particular reference to Para 42 thereof, which O.P.No.21475/99 2 reads as follows: “If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for agumenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory.” 2. As of now, by G.O.(P) No.125/06 dated 17.3.2006, the Government appears to have extended the benefit of revision to persons like the petitioners also, though from a later point of time, from 1.4.2005. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the case of the petitioners against clause (3) of G.O.(P).3001/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998 should gain attention at least of the Government even if it were to be treated that the question arises is essentially in the realm of policy decision making process. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that if the petitioners make O.P.No.21475/99 3 appropriate representations before the Government voicing all the grievances on the basis of the anomaly that they have to point out on the face of the aforesaid Government Order dated 25.11.1998, the Government will consider such representations and take final decision within an outer limit of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.' Since the facts and issues involved are identical in both the cases, this original petition is also disposed of in terms of that judgment. Accordingly, if the petitioners make representations before the Government voicing all their grievances on the basis of the anomaly that they have pointed out in the original petition, on the face of the Government order dated 25.11.1998 referred to in the above judgment, the Government will consider such representations and take a final decision within an outer limit of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The representations shall be submitted within one month from today. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.21475/99 4