IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1616 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.249/2003 Dated 15/06/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 10 IN O.P.: -------------- 1. VIJAYAN, SENIOR SUERINTENDENT (RETD) KSEB SOUPARNIKA, 39/652, HARIKKA STREET, PALAKKAD. 2. R.KRISHNAN SENIOR SUERINTENDENT (RETD) KSEB MULAMTHORODE HOUSE,PARUVASSERI POST KANNAMPRA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 9 IN O.: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PALAI. 4. K.KOMALAKUMARI, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETD) KSEB DREAM LAND, PERINKULAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 5. N.A.VISWANTHAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETD) KSEB 24/384, DOULA STREET, NURANNI VILLAGE,PALAKKAD. 6. K.SARALADEVI, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETD) KSEB 32/109 KRISHNAKRIPA, THAVANATU LANE, PALAKKAD. 7. K.MUHAMMEDALI, ASST.ENGINEER (RETD) KSEB PLOT NO. 28 RAHMAT, VAIDUTHI NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 8.A.SETHU, SUB ENGINEER (RETD) KSEB, AMRUTHA, RAMANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD. 9. A.BHASKARA, SENIOR WATCHMAN (RETD) KSEB, 8/48, SURABHI, VAIDUTHI NAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD. 10. K.A.ABUHAMEED, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD) KSEB, CHINNAKALAM HOUSE, EAST STREET, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. 11. N.K.LEVAN, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER (RETD) KSEB, SREEHARI, BANK ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1616 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the appellants. They are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Pursuant to the pay revision orders introduced in the Electricity Board, pension and related benefits were also revised by the K.S.E.B. as per Ext.P1 order dated 23.2.2001. Clause 17(a) of the said order deals with payment of arrears. The relevant portion of that clause reads as follows: “17(a): The arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension shall be disbursed in two instalments - first in April 2001 and second in June 2001. Arrears of Commutation and DCRG of those who retired between 01.07.1998 and the the date of this order shall be disbursed to them in 8 half yearly instalments over a period of four years from April 2001. Interest as applicable for General Provident Fund will be paid on these arrears along with each instalment. The W.A.No.1616/2009 :-2-: interest will accrue from the date of authorisation of revised DCRG and Commutation.” The appellants are the beneficiaries of Ext.P1. But, because of the above quoted clause, they are being paid interest for the amount due to them with reference to the various dates on which authorisation for payment was issued by the competent authority. In some cases, certain persons get interest for a longer period and in the case of the others, because of the delay from the competent authority to grant authorisation, substantial amount towards interest is being denied. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said clause 17(a) in Ext.P1 and its implementation, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition, mainly, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Government of A.P. v. Subbarayudu [2008(2) KLT 681]. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the writ petitioners have preferred this Writ Appeal. W.A.No.1616/2009 :-3-: 2. We heard the learned counsel, Sri. G.D.Panicker, for the appellants. But, we notice that there are decisions of this Court as well as that of the Apex Court upholding similar provisions. See the decisions in Pauly v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 933] and in State of M.P. v. Devakinandan Maheswari [2003(3) SCC 183]. In view of those binding precedents, the decision of the learned Judge has to be upheld. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps