IMPORTANT POINT
Pension for UGC scale teachers must be calculated based on revised pay from the date of retirement, not delayed by government policy.

JUDGMENT :

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

OP(KAT)No.376/2022

As per Annexure A1 Government Order dated 07/05/2011, the Government revised the pension of teachers and professors of various colleges in the State who are receiving the UGC pay scale. It is stipulated in Annexure A1 that the pension in respect of those who retired on or after 01/01/2006 shall be calculated with reference to the revised pay introduced with effect from 01/01/2006 by applying the existing formulae/rules and the present system of computation of pension at 50% of ten months’ average emoluments would continue.

2. Later, as per Annexures A4 letter and A5 order, the Government clarified that, as the UGC scheme does not contain a provision for payment of pension and the Government revised the pension of other state government employees only with effect from 01/07/2009, those who are receiving UGC scale would also get the revised pension only with effect from 01/07/2009. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside Annexures A4 and A5, following the law laid down in U.P.Raghavendra Acharya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [(2006) 9 SCC 630]. The respondents are retired from the Collegiate Education Department and are covered under the UGC Scheme.

3. The Learned Special Government Pleader (Finance) Sri.P.K.Babu submitted an argument note to substantiate the challenges against the impugned order. According to him, as per clause 11.8 of the Government Order dated 27/03/2010 (which is one among the documents produced as Ext.P4), pension, family pension, gratuity, etc., have to be given based on the amount fixed by the State Government to its employees and thus, the pensionary benefits are to be decided on the basis of the scheme of the pension revision adopted by the State Government and not by the fact that the pay revision for UGC teachers was given effect from 01/01/2006.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader attempted to distinguish the dictum in Raghavendra Acharya's case (supra) by contending that the respondents did not obtain the benefit of pay revision as per Ext.P1 Government Order and hence, they are not eligible for revision of pension based on the law settled in the said case. It is also argued that if the impugned order is upheld, it would award double benefits to the respondents because they had already received the benefits of the State pay revision with effect from 01/04/2005. With respect to the pension and arrears of pension to the UGC pensioners, there is no financial assistance on the part of the Central Government, and hence, the said amount has to be borne by the State Government from its Exchequer, and in that circumstance, the policy decision taken by the State Government as to the date of implementation of the pay revision scheme ought not have been interfered with by the Tribunal, it is argued. A decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP No. 24287/2018 dated 02/08/2022 is also relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader for claiming that the financial assistance from the Central Government is an important criterion and thus the date of implementation of all the pension schemes are to be decided by the respective State Governments.

5. Referring to the decision reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Subbarayudu & Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 702], it is further urged that when a cut-off date is fixed by the executive authority, considering the economic conditions, financial constraints, etc., ordinarily, the court should not interfere with the same. The decision in State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee [(2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1180 (SC)] is also referred to by the learned Special Government Pleader for substantiating that, when the State Government took a conscious policy decision to grant the benefit of revision of pension based on their financial constraints, the High Court should not interfere with the same.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of Part III Kerala Service Rules (