1. The petitioner joined service as II Division Clerk in the then Karnataka Electricity Board on 14.02.1968. He was promoted as Assistant and reported as such to duty on 22.11.1975. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and reported to duty as such on 01.10.1993. Upon the bifurcation of the Karnataka Electricity Board and establishment of ESCOMs, the petitioner having opted to remain in MESCOM, while working as Senior Assistant in the Divisional Office of MESCOM at Mandya, having completed 35 years, 3 months and 17 days of service, opted for voluntary retirement from service on domestic grounds, which was accepted and was relieved from service on 31.05.2003. The terminal benefits payable was settled by the respondent.

2. Respondent in modification of an order No.KPTCL/B16/3002/2007-08(I) dated 31.08.2007, accorded approval for the calculation of pension, family pension, commutation of pension and DCRG in respect of employees who retire or die while in service on or after 01.04.2006 and decided to calculate the pensionary benefits by taking into account 71% of dearness allowance as on 01.07.2005. Alleging discrimination in the grant of pensionary benefits, petitioner submitted a representation dated 3.12.2008, as at Annexure-B and requested to extend the revision of pensionary benefits, by predating the date with effect from 01.04.2003. Since the respondent did not consider the representation of the petitioner, as at Annexure-B, this writ petition has been filed, to direct the respondent to extend the revised pensionary benefits by adding 71% dearness allowance with effect from 01.04.2003 and pay the arrears.

3. For the respondent, statement of objections has been filed contending that petitioner having retired from service of the respondent on 31.05.2003, the order dated 25.04.2008, as at Annexure-A, according approval for calculation of pension, family pension, commutation of pension and DCRG in respect of employees who retire from service or die while in service on or after 01.04.2006 by adding 71% dearness allowance is not applicable to the petitioner and he is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.

4. Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that, all retirees / dead person form a homeogenous class and any differentiation or distinction between retirees / dead persons prior to 01.04.2006 and those who retire / die on or after 01.04.2006 had no rational basis and was not intended to serve any purpose.

5. Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that, pursuant to a policy decision, the order as at Annexure-A, revising the pensionary benefits was issued and that the respondent is entitled to fix the cut off date based on the report dated 31.10.2007 of a Committee constituted to redress the grievance of the pensioners, Learned counsel submitted that, petitioner having voluntarily retired from service on 31.05.2003, cannot claim parity in respect of the employees who retire from service or die while on or after 01.04.2006.

6. The only question which is relevant and needs consideration is, whether the decision of the respondent to restrict the revision of pensionary benefits to employees who retire from service or die while in service on or after 01.04.2006 is arbitrary?

7. The respondent by taking into consideration a settlement dated 25.09.2006 entered into between the Management of KPTCL and the employees’ Union regarding the revision of pay-scales of workmen and other allied matters, the Government servants who have retired from service or died while ins service prior to 01.07.2005 and the corporate orders dated 31.08.2007 revising the pensionary benefits of employees who ceased to be in service on account of retirement or death while in service prior to 01.04.2003, having constituted a Committee to redress the grievance of the pensioners, keeping in view the report dated 31.