IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1130 of 2005() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.31948/2000 Dated 19/11/2004 .................... APPELLANTS - PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. V.T. MUHAMMED, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, MALAYIL HOUSE, ALAPARAMBU, ANDIYOORKUNNU P.O., (VIA) PALICKAL,MALAPPURAM DIST PIN-673637. 2. ABDUL KADAR, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, FIRDOUSE, KATTACHIRA ROAD, B.P. ANGADI, TIRUR-2. BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vsv J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1130 of 2005 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. The petitioners in O.P.No.31948 of 2000 are the appellants. The learned single Judge allowed the Original Petition in part by vacating the order imposing liability on the petitioners. However, their prayer to set aside Exts.P8 and P9 orders whereby the pension payable to them was reduced permanently by Rs.150/- per mensem was declined. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. The appellants retired from service as Special Tahsildars. On the ground that they were negligent in the discharge of their duties in connection with a land acquisition reference on the files of the Sub Court, Manjeri, proceedings were initiated against them while they were in service. After the first appellant retired from service, Ext.P7 show cause notice dated 11.5.1998 was issued calling upon him to show cause why his pension should not be reduced by Rs.150/- per mensem in terms of Rule 59(b) of WA 1130/05 -: 2 :- K.S.R. 3. A similar notice was issued to the second respondent as well. The appellants submitted their explanation. Thereafter, the State Government issued Exts.P8 and P9 orders on 18.8.2000 confirming the provisional decision of the government to reduce their pension by Rs.150/- per mensem under Rule 59(b) of Part III K.S.R. Exts.P8 and P9 disclose that the reduction of pension would be reviewed if necessary as and when a final decision is taken by this Court in the appeals, L.A.A.Nos. 41/96 and 957 of 1995 which arose from the land acquisition proceedings with which the appellants were involved. By the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge vacated the fixation of liability of the appellants holding that in the light of the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Appeals, it cannot be said that the Reference Court enhanced the land value because of the failure of the State Government to object to the Commissioner's report filed in the Reference Court. However, on the ground that the government was justified in reducing the pension payable to the appellants, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with Exts.P8 and P9. The learned single Judge also reserved liberty WA 1130/05 -: 3 :- with the appellants to approach the authorities concerned seeking review of the orders reducing their pension. 4. We heard Smt.V.P.Seemandini, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. A reading of Exts.P8 and P9 will show that the orders were passed under Rule 59(b) of Part III K.S.R., reducing the pension payable to the appellants by Rs.150/- per mensem on the ground that their service was not thoroughly satisfactory. Rule 59(b) of Part III K.S.R. reserves power with the State Government to reduce the pension payable to government employees, if their service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, there was failure on the part of the appellants to take steps to file objections to the Commissioner's report filed in the Reference Court notwithstanding the request made by the Government Pleader appearing in the lower court. We agree with the learned Single Judge that in these circumstances, the State Government was perfectly justified in passing Exts.P8 and P9 orders. Further, Exts.P8 and P9 specifically state that the matter would be reviewed if necessary as and when a final decision is WA 1130/05 -: 4 :- taken in the appeals then pending in this Court. The appeals have since been disposed of. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, it is for the appellants to move the State Government seeking a review of Exts.P8 and P9. We are therefore of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the judgment under challenge. The Writ Appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed in limine, reserving liberty with the appellants to move the State Government seeking a review of Exts.P8 and P9. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/6