JUDGMENT : The petitioners in these writ petitions are judicial officers who are either working or have retired from service as District and Sessions Judges. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13336/2022 is the Kerala Judicial Officers Association. The substantial prayers in these writ petitions is with regard to refixation of pension payable to the petitioners and members of the Association by reckoning special pay which is paid to them as part of their emoluments. The documents are being referred to in this judgment as in W.P.(C) No.694/2022 for convenience, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 2. Heard Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13336/2022, Sri.Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.694/2022, Sri.Mathew Skaria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6098/2022, Sri.Hariraj Madhav Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12888/2022 and Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17016/2022, Sri.K.R.Ranjith, the learned Government Pleader and Sri.B.G.Harindranath and Sri.Elvin Peter P. J., the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13336/2022 submits that all the individual petitioners in these batch of writ petitions except the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13336/2022 are retired judicial officers who were receiving special pay at the time of their retirement. The dispute is with regard to counting of the said special pay as well as the Dearness Allowance receivable thereon while calculating the pension and pensionary benefits due. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the orders passed by the Government treating special pay as a special allowance and that it need not be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits is perseagainst the directions issued of the Apex Court in the decision reported in All India Judges Association and ors. v. Union of India and ors. [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. It is submitted that the said action is violative of Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court where the refusal to reckon the special pay for pensionary benefits by Ext.P5 order had been set aside by this Court which had been affirmed in appeal. v. Union of India and ors. [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]. It is submitted that the said action is violative of Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court where the refusal to reckon the special pay for pensionary benefits by Ext.P5 order had been set aside by this Court which had been affirmed in appeal. It is submitted that after declaration of law by this Court in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments, it was not open to the Government to pass an order granting the benefits to the petitioner in the writ petition alone as a special case and to deny the benefit to identically situated persons. 4. It is submitted that in compliance with the judgment in All India Judges Association case [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], the 1st respondent implemented many of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission by issuing GO (MS) No.231/2001/Home dated 12-12-2001. However, the implementation was not complete and the Supreme Court, by its order dated 20.7.2006, pointed out the shortcomings in the orders issued by the State Governments and directed the Chief Secretaries to rectify them. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 Government Order dated 30-08-2006 additional benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission were granted to members of the District Judiciary. In Ext.P1, it was specifically stated as follows : “Special Pay 9. Decision on payment of special pay will be taken urgently on the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala's proposal on evolving the principle in the matter (as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India), received only on 28/8/06 vide reference cited sixth above.” It was further provided in Ext.P1 that 50% of the last pay drawn shall be the pension. 5. It is submitted that on 28.3.2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide separate order appointed Justice E. Padmanabhan as One Man Commission to determine the Pay, Allowances and Pension of serving and retired Judicial Officers. With regard to quantum of pension and calculation, the Commission, in paragraph 34(b) recommended to follow the recommendation of Shetty Commission. It is stated that as per order dated 4-5-2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to implement the recommendations of the Justice E.Padmanabhan Commission Report with effect from 1.1.2006. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 Government Order dated 7.5.2010 and thereafter, Ext.P3 Government Order dated 2.11.2010 determining the pension and allowances. It is stated that as per order dated 4-5-2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to implement the recommendations of the Justice E.Padmanabhan Commission Report with effect from 1.1.2006. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 Government Order dated 7.5.2010 and thereafter, Ext.P3 Government Order dated 2.11.2010 determining the pension and allowances. It is submitted that in Ext.P3 also, it is stated that the quantum of pension will be 50% of the last pay drawn. 6. It is submitted that a Government Order had been issued on 31.10.2006 on the proposal forwarded by the High Court sanctioning 'special allowance' for extra administrative work (special pay) with effect from 1.9.2006. The rates of special pay were provided in the Government Order. All the petitioners were receiving special pay at the time of their retirement on the basis of the said order. A Government Order was issued on 29.11.2010 which is produced as Ext.P5 along with W.P.(C) No.694/2022 ordering that the special pay for extra administrative work sanctioned as per Government Orders dated 31.10.2006 and 20.5.2009 will count for all purposes except for fixation of pay and for reckoning pensionary benefits. 7. This was challenged by a judicial officer before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36379/2017. The petitioner had prayed that the special pay received by him should be counted as pay for the purpose of calculation of his pension. This Court considered the contentions and found that Rule 12(23) of Part I KSR defines 'pay' which includes 'personal pay' and 'special pay'. Rule 12(31) of Part I KSR specifically defines 'special pay'. Rule 62 of Part III KSR defines 'emoluments' comprising pay as defined in Rule 12(23) of Part I KSR as well and dearness pay. Considering the contentions raised on either side, this Court found that Ext.P10 order dated 29.11.2010 and Ext.P9 letter of the Senior Accounts Officer are untenable and that the petitioner is entitled to reckon special pay received prior to retirement as part of his pay and for calculation of pension accordingly. 8. The said judgment was taken in appeal and confirmed by Ext.P7 where the Division Bench specifically considered all the contentions raised and held that financial constraints are not a justifiable reason that can be raised for not granting the due benefits to judicial officers who are carrying out the essential judicial functions of the republic. 8. The said judgment was taken in appeal and confirmed by Ext.P7 where the Division Bench specifically considered all the contentions raised and held that financial constraints are not a justifiable reason that can be raised for not granting the due benefits to judicial officers who are carrying out the essential judicial functions of the republic. It was held that special pay being a part of pay should be considered for calculation of pension as well. It is submitted that thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed referring to the judgments, but according sanction to recalculate the pensionary benefit in respect of the petitioner alone as a special case for the “limited purpose of complying with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and it shall not be a precedent for admitting such claims in future”. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the declaration of law by this Court in the judgments, the act of the Government in limiting the benefit to the petitioner in that case alone is an affront to the orders and authority of this Court. It is contended that the specific order which directed the treating of the special pay as special allowance having been set aside by this Court, the Government had absolutely no justification in not treating the special pay drawn by all judicial officers, who were entitled to the same as part of pay for the purpose of pension and that the refusal to do so is completely unsustainable. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Abraham Mathew K and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2012 (1) KLT 280 ]. This Court held that the National Judicial Commission did not decide the issue with regard to payment of special pay to judicial officers for the reason that the Commission was having no sufficient data/materials in this regard. The task of evolving a policy/principle for paying special pay to eligible judicial officers who had considerable administrative work outside court hours was left for the High Court to decide. Therefore, once the High Court had decided that special pay is to be granted to judicial officers who perform additional administrative work, the Government could not deny the benefits to such officers found eligible by the respective High Courts. 11. Adv. Therefore, once the High Court had decided that special pay is to be granted to judicial officers who perform additional administrative work, the Government could not deny the benefits to such officers found eligible by the respective High Courts. 11. Adv. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.694/2022 would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others [ (2015) 1 SCC 347 ] to contend that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the same benefit and not going so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Amrut Distilleries Ltd. (M/s.), Palakkad v. State of Kerala and others [ 2015 (3) KHC 154 ] is also relied on by the learned counsel to contend that though a particular judgment is not in rem, the principle decided therein squarely applies to similarly placed persons under all situations and that they could not be compelled to approach the court inviting the self-same order once again, which is nothing but duplication of judicial work. 12. Detailed counter affidavits have been placed on record by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.694/2022. It is stated at paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent as follows :- “4. As per the recommendations of Shetty Commission, special pay is sanctioned to “Such of those judicial officers who have considerable administrative work outside court hours”. The High Court, after considering the nature of duties attached to each category of officers in the state Judiciary, had identified that the presiding officers of Principal Courts and independent courts with filing owners are attending administrative work after the office hours and are therefore eligible for special Pay. The Government, vide G.O.(MS) No.181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 had sanctioned Special Allowance for extra administrative work to Judicial Officers, as proposed by the High Court. True copy of the G.O.(MS) No. 181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(a). The Government, vide G.O.(MS) No.181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 had sanctioned Special Allowance for extra administrative work to Judicial Officers, as proposed by the High Court. True copy of the G.O.(MS) No. 181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(a). Later, the Government as per G.O. (MS) No. 76/2010/Home dated 23.03.2010, renamed the “Special Allowance for extra administrative work” as Special Pay and ordered that the same shall be treated as Special Pay for all purposes. True copy of the G.O.(MS) No. 76/2010/Home dated 23.03.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(b). 5. Subsequently, the Government, based on the intimation received from the Accountant General that at the time of fixation of pay on cadre to cadre promotion and also on fixation of pay on granting Assured Career Progression scales of pay, reckoning of special Allowance as Special Pay might lead to junior-senior anomaly and other such issues, ordered that Special Pay for extra administrative work will count for all purposes, except for fixation of pay and for reckoning pensionary benefits. True copy of the G.O.(MS) No.262/2010/Home dated 29.11.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(c). 6. It may be noted that, as per Government order dated 31.10.2006, only certain posts of Judicial Officers in the Subordinate Judiciary are sanctioned Special Pay. Thus, all officers in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrates/Sub Judges do not enjoy the benefit of Special Pay. Moreover, seniority is not a criterion for posting officers to such posts. 7. Hence, if Special Pay is reckoned for pensionary benefits, a junior officer enjoying the benefit of Special Pay might get higher pensionary benefits than a senior who does not enjoy the benefit of Special Pay, for the sole reason that he was not holding the post of Presiding Officer of a Principal Court/Independent Court with filing powers, at the time of his retirement. Moreover, all Officers may opt to retire from such posts which may lead to administrative inconvenience and unhealthy competition among Officers.” 13. The 1st respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record, wherein the same contentions as had been taken in the earlier round of litigation are reiterated. It is stated at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit as follows :- “8. The 1st respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record, wherein the same contentions as had been taken in the earlier round of litigation are reiterated. It is stated at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit as follows :- “8. It is submitted that Government as per G.O.(MS) No.181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 have accorded sanction for special allowance for extra administrative work for various categories of judicial officers. Later as G.O.(MS) No.76/2010/ Home dated 23.03.2010, the name of this perk has been changed as special pay and counted for all purposes. This benefits has been extended to judicial officers who are working on deputation. As per G.O.(MS) No.262/2010/Home dated 29.11.2010 Government have ordered that the special pay for extra administrative work will count for all purpose if special pay is reckoned for fixation, it would lead to various anomalies, namely junior-senior and anomaly in pensionary benefits. The special allowance for extra administrative work sanctioned as per G.O.(MS) No.181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 which later renamed as special pay will not come under the purview of special pay defined in Rule 12(31) Part I KSRs. Hence vide G.O. (MS) No.48/2022/Home dated 14.03.2022 renaming the Special pay as Special Allowance by amending the orders issued in G.O. (MS) No.181/2006/Home dated 31.10.2006 and G.O.(MS) No.175/2011/Home dated 08.08.2011. If the judicial officer is the head of office to which he is attached, then only eligible for Special Pay subjected to conditions in G.O. dated 31.10.2006. If the petitioners in the Writ Petitions are the head of office to which he is attached, then only eligible for Special Pay subject to the conditions in G.O. dated 31.10.2006.” The petitioners have also produced Government Order dated 23.3.2010, a communication dated 8.6.2010 as well as a later Government Order dated 14.3.2022 stating that the special pay sanctioned to judicial officers is to be treated as special allowance. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the action of the respondents in issuing Government Orders which are completely at variance with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court amounts to an open challenge to the orders and authority of this Court and that the said directions are completely illegal and violative of the directions of this Court. 15. I have considered the contentions advanced. 15. I have considered the contentions advanced. This Court in the earlier round of litigation had specifically considered the nature of the special pay granted to judicial officers pursuant to the directions of the Shetty Commission. It was found that special pay would come within the definition of pay under Rule 12(23). Special Pay is a benefit which is granted to officers posted in specific posts having administrative responsibilities for the extra work which is done by them. The argument that grant of special pay to some officers will lead to a junior-senior anomaly had been agitated in the earlier litigation also but did not find favour with this Court. The argument cannot be sustained for a moment in view of the fact that the principles on which a difference in pay between a senior and junior is to be considered to be an anomaly are provided in the very same Rule itself. Grant of special pay for administrative duties would not, by any stretch of imagination, result in any junior-senior anomaly since it is a special emolument given for extra work done. 16. The Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment specifically held that the whole problem has arisen on account of the subjective understanding of the Accountant General that the grant of special pay will lead to senior-junior anomaly in the grant of pensionary benefits. After considering all the contentions, it was held by the Division Bench as follows :- “15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Single Judge is fully right in taking the view, as per the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2019, that rejection of the claim of the petitioner, as per Ext.P9 on the basis of the legally flawed understanding discernible from Ext.P10, is a grave illegality, which would deserve interdiction in the judicial review proceedings. Hence, the learned Single Judge is right in setting aside the impugned orders and issuing the mandatory directions to the respondents in the W.P(C)/appellants herein to grant the benefits by reckoning the special pay given to the writ petitioner while holding the post of University Appellate Tribunal, as part of his pay for the purpose of computing his pension and pensionary benefits. We hope and trust that the appellants would put a quietus to this issue, so that, objections of this nature are not unnecessarily raised as against the judicial officers concerned.” The impugned orders passed by the Government, without considering the declaration of law by this Court, are completely unsustainable. The contention of the respondents that special pay cannot be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pension is without any merit whatsoever. The said contentions are repelled. The orders and letters impugned in these writ petitions are, therefore, set aside. It is declared that the special pay granted to judicial officers is a part of their pay and that it is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of pension. The respondents shall take appropriate steps to see that the pension of the judicial officers who drew special pay at the time of their retirement is revised and the arrears are disbursed to them forthwith, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.