Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 72 (KER)

Ponnachan v. State of Kerala

1999-02-08

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body1999
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Petitioners in these cases have retired from service earlier than the date of Ext. P1 order. Ext. P1 was passed on 25.11.1998 giving effect to the revision of pension and other related benefits consequent on the revision of scales of pay from 1.3.1997. 2. From 1.3.1997, a pay revision was effected in respect of the State Government Employees as per G.O.(P) No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. By that order, the revision was given effect to from 1.3.1997 onwards. In tune with such revision of scales of pay from 1.3.1997, orders were issued in Ext. P1 revising the pension and other related benefits in respect of those who had retired after 1.3.1997, in tune with the scales of pay that they would have got had they be in service. Taking into account the financial burden, Government regulated the payment of arrears arising out of the revision of pension and other related benefits as follows: "The arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension shall be disbursed in two instalments, first in December, 1998 and second in March, 1999. Arrears of commutation and DCRG of those who retired between 1.3.1997 and the date of this order shall be disbursed to them in 8 half yearly instalments over a period of four years from 1.12.1998. Interest as applicable for General Provident Fund will be paid on these arrears along with each instalment. The interest will accrue from the date of authorisation of revised DCRG and Commutation" 3. Petitioners submit that this is discriminatory in so far as the persons retired from 1.3.1997 alone are subjected to this restriction. 4. This contention cannot be accepted because there is no revision of pension consequent on revision of pay scale in respect of those Government servants who had retired earlier than 1.3.1997. Moreover all the persons who had retired upto the date of Ext. P1, after the date of retrospectivity to the revision of scales of pay, are governed by orders in paragraph 18 of Ext. P1. No "pensioner" is left out of paragraph 18. All the pensioners retired after 1.3.1997 and upto the date of Ext. P1 are covered by paragraph 18 of Ext. P1. There is no classification and consequently, there is no discrimination. 5. The persons who are to retire after 25.11.1998, the date of Ext. P1. No "pensioner" is left out of paragraph 18. All the pensioners retired after 1.3.1997 and upto the date of Ext. P1 are covered by paragraph 18 of Ext. P1. There is no classification and consequently, there is no discrimination. 5. The persons who are to retire after 25.11.1998, the date of Ext. P1 are not pensioners or retired persons, as on the date, but are persons in service with reference to the date of Ext. P1. Merely because some persons would retire on a future date and they would be getting the same benefits, will not act as discrimination, so far as the drawal of arrears by the pensioners who had already retired from service before the advent of Ext. P1. Persons to retire after 25.11.199 8 have no arrears of pension to be paid. So, on that ground also, there is no discrimination. 6. It is also contended before me that the D.C.R.G. commutation value of pension "'and other pensionary benefits shall be paid in lumpsum. Petitioners had no case that they had not been paid the D.C.R.G. or the commuted value of pension based on the last pay drawn by them. Such benefits eligible to them had been calculated and paid, taking into account the pay that they had drawn in the respective scales of pay as were applicable at the time of their retirement. It was subsequent to their retirement that the pay revision was effected and because of that, arrears of pension also accrued to them. Some of the pensioners are also entitled to the arrears of pay; that was given in lumpsum. No restriction to that effect is contained in the pay revision order. But, in the matter of payment of arrears of pension alone, that is directed to be paid in two instalments. That was the position even for the respective persons in service when the 5th Pay Commission was implemented in respect of the Central Government employees and the entire arrears arisen out of such implementation were directed to be paid in two instalments by Central Government. That course of action is adopted in the matter of payment of arrears of revision of pension or family pension as per Ext. P1. That cannot be said to be discriminatory because all the pensioners entitled to arrears of pension are grouped together and the pensioners are not classified into different groups for such payment. That course of action is adopted in the matter of payment of arrears of revision of pension or family pension as per Ext. P1. That cannot be said to be discriminatory because all the pensioners entitled to arrears of pension are grouped together and the pensioners are not classified into different groups for such payment. In the case of arrears arising out of commutation and D.C.R.G., six monthly payments are provided for, for about four years, that too with interest. That is obviously taking note of the financial constraints involved and the difficulty of the State Government to find out funds for such disbursement. That instalment payment is provided for to meet the exigencies of situation and all the pensioners upto the date of Ext. P1 and covered by Ext. P1 revision of pension are included within the purview of such restriction. There is no discrimination or violation of Art.14 or 16 of the Constitution of India as the case may be. The Original Petition fails. Dismissed. No costs.