IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29723 of 2003(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.J.ANTONY, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 62, THOTTUVELIL HOUSE, CC 22/1414, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.L.JOSEPH SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SC.COCHIN CORP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29723/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER BEARING PPO NO.777 DTD. 6.6.02. P2:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 30.12.02 ISSUED TO THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. P3:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 6.2.03 ISSUED TO THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29723 OF 2003 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to have 21 years of service from 1984 till his retirement on 31.7.2001. By Ext.P1 he was allowed monthly pension of Rs.1275/- with effect from 18.7.1941. According to the petitioner he is now getting only a monthly pension of Rs.1308/-, although persons similarly situated like him, are getting much more than what he get. Petitioner has referred to the case of one P.K.Supran who according to the petitioner is getting monthly pension of Rs.1558/-. It is stated that this is discrimination and therefore Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued, which was not responded. It was his case that he was not paid arrears of salary from 1999 to 31.7.2001, for which Ext.P3 notice was issued. Here again there was no response. Therefore the writ Petition is filed. 2. In so far as the arrears of pay is concerned, this court passed an order dated 6.2.2004 directing the 2nd respondent to pay arrears of salary if any admissible to the petitioner and therefore that grievance does not survive any more. WPC.No.29723/03 :2 : 3. In so far as his grievance that he is getting lesser amount of pension as mentioned above is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is getting Rs. 1525/- as the total pension and that Sri. Supran mentioned by the petitioner is also getting Rs.1525/- . It is stated that in the case of the petitioner, Rs.450/- was reduced on commutation, where as in the case of Sri. Supran only Rs.125/- was reduced on commutation. It is stated that it is because of the reduction thus effected consequent on the commutation of pension that the petitioner is getting lesser amount than Sri. Supran. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner that he has 21 years of service is incorrect and as rightly contended, even going by the claim of the petitioner, he has only about 17 years of service. 4. Irrespective of the controversy on the length of the service, the claim of the petitioner is for payment of higher pension, at least on par with Sri. Supran mentioned in the writ petition. Counter affidavit shows that the petitioner happened to get lower pension than Sri. Supran on account of commutation effected at his instance. Therefore the petitioner cannot complain WPC.No.29723/03 :3 : that he is getting lesser pension than Sri. Supran. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/