IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 299 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2218/2006 Dated 08/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ K.P.GOVINDAN, CONVENOR, CIRCUS CULTURAL FORUM, PEER ROAD, THALASSERY, DIST.KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA.A.C SRI.VENUGOPAL.A.C RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION, SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.299 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag.C.J. Appellant has filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P6 and also to declare that the appellant and the members of his association shown in Ext.P4 are entitled to pension payable to disabled circus artists, as per Ext.P1 rules, from the date of their applications or at least from 22.5.2000, on which day the State Level Circus Pension Committee accepted the recommendation of the second respondent and found 179 persons listed in Ext.P3 to be eligible persons and decided to grant pension to them. The learned Single Judge considered the prayer made in the writ petition and found that since the decision is already taken and the appellant along with others have been granted pension, the question as to whether pension should be given with effect from the date of the decision of the State Level Committee is a matter on which writ of mandamus could not be issued. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it was stated W.A.No.299 of 2010 2 that the cut of date regarding commencement of the pension is an administrative question purely vested with the Government and that it could be considered by the Government only after taking stock of the financial position and other financial commitments etc. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, so long as pension has been granted, whether it should be given retrospective effect from the date of decision of the State Level Committee is only a matter for the Government to decide. There is no legal right as such to insist that pension should be paid with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date of decision of the State Level Committee. In the absence of any such right, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is an administrative decision and the Court cannot interfere is perfectly correct . Hence, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.