High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-07-24DISMISSED

OP Nos. 30307 of 2000 & 16327 of 1999

Case / Petition Number:OP.No. 30307/2000

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2007-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of; directed Government to consider representations on the anomaly in the 25/11/1998 GO and decide within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: DISMISSED

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI
N. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
K.M. VARGHESE
K. MADHUSUDANAN NAIR
K. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI
C.G. BALACHANDRAN
P.S. SATHYADEVAN
A.K. VARGHESE
V. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P. KARUNAKARAN NAIR
K. NARAYANAN UNNITHAN
S.M. DEVADAS
N.K. PRABHAKARAN NAIR
S. MALATHYKUTTY AMMA
K. GOPINATHAN PILLAI
K. SIVARAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
N. KRISHNA PILLAI
N. KUTTAN PILLAI
K. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA
P. GOPIKKUTTAN NAIR
V.K. BHASKARAN
P. PUSHPANGATHAN UNNITHAN
K.P. GOPINATHA PILLAI
P. SARADAMMA
K.R. GANGADHARAN PILLAI

Respondents

THE STATE OF KERALA, represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri N. Sugathan
• SMT. R. Seema

Counsels for Respondents

• GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. RAMANI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition (OP No. 30307/2000, along with 16327/1999) before the Kerala High Court challenges Government Order GO(P) 3001/98/Fin, which revised pensions and related benefits with effect from 1.3.1997. The petitioners, a cohort of retired government employees, contend that clause (3) of the GO confers on only a subset of beneficiaries “fitment” benefits and thereby creates an unconstitutional, hostile discrimination against those who retired before the cut-off date. They anchor their challenge to the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130), particularly para 42, which held that pension revisions must be rational and that divisions among pensioners not grounded in a rational nexus to the policy objective amount to discrimination. The petitioners note that as of 17.3.2006, GO 125/06 extended the benefit to late retirees from 1.4.2005, but argue parity with earlier retirees is still lacking. The government contends pension revisions are policy decisions and not subject to judicial direction to extend benefits retroactively. The court discusses Nakara’s rational-class principle and finds that the Go creates two classes of pensioners without a rational nexus to the objective. Ultimately, the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the government consider representations challenging the anomaly and decide within eight months from the date of judgment. The CMP is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P). No. 3001/98/Fin. dated 25/11/1998G.O.(P). No.125/06 dated 17/3/2006State Pay Commission Report, 1998Office Memoranda EXT.P.2 and EXT.P.3 (Central Government)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Classification of pensioners must be rational and have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved; two-class division without rational basis is discriminatory (Nakara principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that clause (3) of G.O.(P).3001/98/Fin confers only ‘fitment’ benefits on those who retired after 1.3.1997, creating an arbitrary two-class system. They rely on D.S. Nakara to argue that the rational principle must underpin pension classifications and that extending liberalisation to some while excluding others fails this test. They urge parity with those retired earlier but later included in the revised scheme, advocating remedial action by the Government.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents counter that pension liberalisation decisions are policy matters and not reviewable judicially in terms of extending benefits retroactively. They point to GO 125/06 extending benefits from 1.4.2005 and submit that the court should refrain from mandating retroactive relief, preserving executive discretion.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India	AIR 1983 SC 130	Positive	Cited to support the principle that pension classifications must be rational and that creating a two-class system without nexus to the objective is discriminatory.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP Nos. 30307 of 2000 & 16327 of 1999 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2007 / 2ND SRAVANA 1929** ## **OP.No. 30307 of 2000(G)** **----------------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** - **---------------------** **1. K. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, RASHMI, OLAYIL, KOLLAM.** **2. N. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA, A-26, AISWARYA NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. K.M. VARGHESE, ROSH KOTTAGE, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM.** **4. K. MADHUSUDANAN NAIR, SREEVARDHINI, KILIKOLLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM - 4.** **5. K. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, SOORYA, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** ## **6. C.G. BALACHANDRAN, NADAM, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM.** **7. P.S. SATHYADEVAN, THRIMOORTHY BHAVAN, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.** **8. A.K. VARGHESE, ASWATHY, ASRAMAM NORTH, KOLLAM -2.** **9. V. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VIJAYAMOHAN BUILDING, VADAYATHUKOTTA, KOLLAM-1.** ## **O.P. NO. 30307/2000:** **10. P. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MATTAKKATHU, PALACE WARD, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** **11. K. NARAYANAN UNNITHAN, SREELAKSHMI, OLAYIL, KOLLAM.** **12. S.M. DEVADAS, DEVAGIRI, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** **13. N.K. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, PRASANTHI, KOTTAKKAKOM, KACHERI.P.O., KOLLAM.** **14. S. MALATHYKUTTY AMMA, KOOTHUNGAL, OLAYIL, KOLLAM.** **15. K. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, NJARAVILA VEEDU, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM.** **16. K. SIVARAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, LAKSHMI VILAS, OLAYIL, KOLLAM.** ## **17. N. KRISHNA PILLAI, RASHMI, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** **18. N. KUTTAN PILLAI, PULAYIRAZHIKATHU, VADAKKEVILA, ASHTAMUDI.P.O., KOLLAM.** **19. K. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, KALEELIL VEEDU, MATHILIL.P.O., KOLLAM.** **20. P. GOPIKKUTTAN NAIR, PRASADAM, MANGAD, KOLLAM.** **21. V.K. BHASKARAN, KULANGARA VEEDU, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** ## **22. P. PUSHPANGATHAN UNNITHAN, THRIPTHI, KAVANADU, KOLLAM.** ## **O.P. NO. 30307/2000:** **23. K.P. GOPINATHA PILLAI, VRINDAVAN, EDAKKULANGARA.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** **24. P. SARADAMMA, RASHMI, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.** **25. K.R. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, GEETHANIVAS, THEVALLEY, KOLLAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.R.SEEMA.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. RAMANI.** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2007, ALONG WITH O.P. NO. 16327/1999, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 51434/2000 IN O.P. NO. 30307/2000** ## **DISMISSED** **24/07/2007.** **SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXT.P.1: STATEMENT SHOWING THE DEPT. AND THE POST FROM WHICH THE PETITIONERS RETIRED AND THE DATE OF THEIR RETIREMENT.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DTD. 27/10/1997 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO. 45/10/98-P&PW (A) DTD. 17/12/1998 OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P.4: RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATE PAY COMMISSION REPORT, 1998.** **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O. (P). NO. 3001/98/FIN. DTD. 25/11/1998 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/05/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **prv.** ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------O.P.Nos.30307 OF 2000 & 16327 OF 1999 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2007 O.P.Nos.30307 OF 2000 & 16327 OF 1999 ## **JUDGMENT** G.O.(P).No.3001/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 was issued by the Government of Kerala in relation to revision of pension and other related benefits consequent on revision of pay scales from 1.3.1997. The petitioners who retired from service of the State of Kerala before 1.3.1997 contend that the provision made in clause (3) of that Government Order, conferring on such beneficiaries only fitment benefits, is unconstitutional and results in hostile discrimination. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment in **D.S.Nakara and Others** v. **Union of India** (AIR 1983 SC 130), with particular reference to Para 42 thereof, which reads as follows: “If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle ? The classification has to be based, OP.30307/00 & 16327/99 Page numbers as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory.” 2. As of now, by G.O.(P) No.125/06 dated 17.3.2006, the Government appears to have extended the benefit of revision to persons like the petitioners also, though from a later point of time, from 1.4.2005. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the case of the petitioners against clause (3) of G.O.(P).3001/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 should gain attention at least of the Government even if it were to be treated that the question arises is essentially in the realm of policy decision making process. OP.30307/00 & 16327/99 ## Page numbers For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that if the petitioners make appropriate representations before the Government voicing all the grievances on the basis of the anomaly that they have to point out on the face of the aforesaid Government Order dated 25.11.1998, the Government will consider such representations and take final decision within an outer limit of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge** kkb. OP.30307/00 & 16327/99 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NOs.30307/00 & 16327/99 ## JUDGMENT 24TH JULY, 2007. =======================