1. The petitioner, a member of Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSC’) has approached this Court aggrieved by the fixation of his pay at a reduced rate, on the ground that he is drawing pension. The payment of salary and other benefits of the members of P.S.C. are governed by Kerala Public Service Commission (Composition & Conditions of Service of Members and Staff) Regulations, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation’ for short). Regulation 4 deals with the salary and allowances of Chairman and members.

2. The petitioner voluntarily retired from the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as ‘SBT’) on 17.4.2007, after rendering service there, from 12.10.1981 onwards. On 14.9.2010, he was appointed as member of PSC, as per Ext.P1 order, under Article 316(1) of the Constitution of India. At the time when petitioner was appointed, the pay admissible to a member of PSC was Rs.20500/-. But petitioner’s pay was fixed after deducting the pension drawn by him from SBT. In Ext.P5 pay slip, his substantive pay as on 17.9.2010 was shown as Rs.7905/-in the place of Rs.20500/-. By Ext.P8 order-i.e., G.O.(MS) No.413/2010/GAD/27.12.2010, Government revised the pay and allowances of Members of PSC as Rs.70,290/-, with effect from 1.1.2006. But petitioner continued to get his pay after effecting the deduction. Based on this revision, petitioner’s pay was fixed as per Ext.P9, reckoning his substantive pay as Rs.57387/- in the place of Rs.70290/-, as on 17.9.2010.

3. Aggrieved by the fixation of pay at reduced rate, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram on 6.12.2010, pointing out that he was drawing pension only because he sacrificed the Contributory Provident Fund credited in his account till his retirement, which was payable at the time of his retirement. He pointed out that the Pension Corpus Fund was created by the SBT, out of the Contributory Provident fund credited to the Provident Fund Account of the employees, who had the option either to draw the entire amount at the time of retirement or to opt for pension scheme by sacrificing the same. Therefore he pointed out that the pension he was getting was not from the Consolidated Fund of India but from the Provident Fund which had accumulated and transformed as pension fund. The petitioner pointed out that the pension he was drawing in such circumstances was not liable to be deducted while computing his pay. That representation was rejected by Ext.P7 by the Deputy Accountant General on 14.3.2011 saying that since the petitioner was in receipt of pension from SBT, which is substantially owned by State Bank of India, a state owned Public Sector Undertaking, his salary was regulated in tune with Regulation 4(1)(ii), which provides for the categories of persons whose salary payable by the Commission would be reduced by an amount equivalent to their retirement benefits. It was stated that the category of persons mentioned therein includes persons under any other body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government.

4. Thereupon petitioner approached the Government by way of Ext.P10 representation, wherein he explained that the pension which he was receiving was in terms of State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 and therefore the deduction of the same from his salary was not permissible. He pointed out that he was not getting pension from the funds of S.B.T.; it is not a statutory pension; the corpus of funds for pension is the contribution to the Provident Fund, as can be seen from Regulation 7 of the S.B.T. Employees Pension Regulation; the fund is administered by a Board of Trustees constituted under the Regulations; moreover he was not receiving pension from a body owned or controlled by Government and hence the pension, he was getting from the SBT was not one liable to be deducted, under Regulation 4(2)(ii) of the Regulations; in fact the petiti