JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. In all these cases, the challenge is to the order of Government bearing number GO (P) No. 38/21/Fin. dated 25.02.2021, through which, the Government issued certain orders relating to revision of pension and Family Pension to those coming under the scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

2. Even though the Government had earlier issued two other orders, the stipulations therein were substituted through the ones contained in the aforementioned order. The petitioners are aggrieved because, in the said order, paragraph 6.1 provides as under:

The revised pension/family pension shall be granted in cash with effect from 01.04.2021. Arrears of pension revision for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2019 will be notional. Pensioners/Family Pensioners prior to 01.01.2016 are eligible to draw arrears from 01.07.2019 to 31.03.2021 on account of revision of Pension/Family Pension in four installments each at 25% of the arrears, in cash on April 2021, May 2021, August 2021 and November 2021. In the case of those who retired on or after 01.01.2016, the arrears of Pension, Family Pension, DCRG and Terminal Surrender will be disbursed as stated above. Arrears on Commutation will be disbursed in a single installment in cash on 01.10.2021.

They say that deferring of pension is illegal, as also rendering it as being notional for any period; and that the Government did not have the right to fix any cut off date, as has been done therein, in view of the affirmative declarations of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 360. They thus pray that the order, to the extent impugned, be set aside.

3. I have heard Sri. V. Krishna Menon, Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair and Sri. Mathew Jacob - learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and Smt. M.R. Sreelatha - learned Special Government Pleader for Finance.

4. The afore submissions of the petitioners were refuted by the learned Special Government Pleader relying upon a counter affidavit filed in some of these cases. She argued that the revision of pension, on account of the UGC Scheme, to all the pensioners and retired employees, would cause a huge drain on the finances of the State and therefore, that it was incumbent upon them to have made provisions, including by stipulating cut-off dates. She submitted that this is permissible in law, within the declarations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.N. Menon and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 68, which sanctions power to the Government to fix a cut-off date, since the benefits under the revision can be shouldered only within the financial resources available to them.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader then added that the present financial situation of the Government is in such state that the entire amounts as per the revision cannot be paid to all the employees or pensioners and that this has been exacerbated on account of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic scenario, coupled with natural calamities, which have crippled the State’s financial capacity. She then complained that the situation has become far worse because payments under the GST regime of the Government of India have not been properly paid to the State, but that in spite of all this, the Government have fulfilled its primary duty of providing relief to its citizens by administering various social welfare schemes including Social Security Pension etc., as also new responsibilities under the Health Sector. She submitted that, therefore, if the Government is asked to shoulder the entire burden of revised pension, it would be impossible; and consequently, that it was within its power to decide the manner in which the arrears of revised pension are to be honoured.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in particular Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair, pointed out that P.N. Menon (supra) has been subsequently s