IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7269 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.C.MATHEW, S/O. LATE CHACKO, AGED 71, RESIDING AT POTHADY HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.7269 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.1992. He had received his retirement benefits also. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to revised pension consequent upon the 6th Pay Commission. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to draw a monthly pension of Senior/Higher Grade Deputy Collector of Rs.10,350/- stated to be 50% of the minimum of the scale of Rs.20,700 -26,600. Revised orders have been issued in favour of the petitioner under Exhibit P6. But his grievance is that revision has not taken into account the fact that the petitioner is entitled to fixation of the revised scale of Senior/Higher Grade Deputy Collector. This has been brought to the notice of the Accountant General by Exhibit P7. Petitioner prays for a direction to the Accountant General to consider Exhibit P7, 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and I have perused the averments in the W.P ( C) No.7269 of 2008 2 writ petition as also Exhibit P6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim under Exhibit P7 and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disbursal of the revised pension as per Exhibit P6 need not await the decision to be taken as aforementioned and if the petitioner’s claim is accepted, revised PPO shall be issued by the 2nd respondent within the said time. Petitioner shall be heard if a decision adverse to the interests of the petitioner is proposed to be taken by the 2nd respondent. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.7269 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 W.P ( C) No.7269 of 2008 2 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.