IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
Cherian Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos.694, 6098, 12888, 13336 & 17016 of 2022
Decided on : 18-01-2023
Service Matter -Pension –Petitioners are judicial officers who are either working or have retired from service - 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 – Whether petitions are maintainable.
Finding of the Court: 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 - 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 - 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 - Impugned orders passed by the Government, without considering the declaration of law by this Court, are completely unsustainable.
Result: Petitions ordered accordingly
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. 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 :
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 calculati
Abraham Mathew K and others v. State of Kerala and others [2012 (1) KLT 280]
Amrut Distilleries Ltd. (M/s.)
All India Judges Association and ors. v. Union of India and ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 247]
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others [(2015) 1 SCC 347]
SupremeToday
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Kerala Service Rules defining pay and special pay, and their inclusion in the computation of pensionary ben....
(1) A unified judiciary necessarily entails that service conditions of Judges of one State are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other States – Judiciary must possess inherent power to compel ....
The principle of uniformity in granting monetary benefits and prohibition of discrimination within the class.
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
Special Pay granted by Government order for employees of Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi must be included in pay for pension calculation.
The distinction between retired employees and employees in service in the context of notional pay fixation and pension revision.
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual benefits from 21.04.2004 under 5th CPC upgradation; prior judgments in rem mandate parity despite delay in ....
Pay parity judgments for Inspectors/Superintendents are in rem, entitling all similarly situated officers to notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 despite non-litigation; selective implementation viola....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.