The court ruled that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in administrative decisions regarding pension entitlements, reinforcing constitutional rights against arbitrary discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

(MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.)

The petitioners are retired members of the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). The 1 st petitioner, who retired on 31.03.2010 as Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory under the Home Department, was appointed as Member of the PSC as per Ext.P1 Government Order. Vide Ext.P1, the 2 nd petitioner who retired on 31.03.2010 as a Teacher from BCM College, Kottayam was also appointed as Member of the PSC. The 3 rd petitioner retired from Sasthamkotta Devaswom Board College as Associate Professor on 31.03.2010 and was appointed as the Member of the PSC as perExt.P2 Government Order.

2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (Composition and Conditions of Service of Members and Staff) Regulations, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') are framed under Article 318 of the Constitution of India . Regulations 7 and 7A relate to the reckoning of pension for the Chairman and Members of the PSC. As per the Regulations, the Chairman or other Member of the PSC, who, on the date of his entering on duties as such, was in the service of the Government of Kerala, shall count his service as Chairman/Member for pension under the Rules applicable to the service to which he belonged immediately before such appointment. However, at his option, to be exercised within a period of six months, he would be entitled to draw his pension and other retirement benefits under the Rules applicable to service to which he belonged. As per Clause (3) of Regulation 7A, the Chairman or other Member of the Commission, who on the date of his entering on duties as such was in the service of the Government of India or the Government of any State other than the State of Kerala shall from the date of his appointment be entitled to draw his pension and other retirement benefits under the Rules applicable to the service to which he belonged, with effect from the date of his appointment as Chairman or other Member. Clause (4) also enables such a Chairman or other Member to exercise option within a period of three months not to draw the pension and be entitled to count his service for pension and his pension shall be revised as per the Rules applicable to the service to which he belonged immediately before such appointment. However, the salary shall be reduced by the amount equivalent to the pension and he shall be entitled to draw his pension and retirement benefits separately. Clause (4) of Rule 7A enables the Chairman or Members to exercise the option, within a period of three months, not to draw the pension and to count the service towards pension under the Rules of his erstwhile appointment.

3. The Government have amended the Regulations as per Ext.P7 Order dated 21.08.2017. As per Clause 7(1) of the amended Regulations, the Chairman/Member of the PSC shall be given pension at the rate of 7.5% of the basic pay drawn for every completed year of service as Chairman/Member in the Commission subject to a maximum of 50% of basic pay drawn and Dearness Allowance at the rate admissible to Central Government Employees (pre-revised).

4. The petitioners, along with one K.Premarajan and another person, had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.4203/2015 and this Court, taking note of theamended Regulations as well as Ext.P9 judgment rendered in identical case, directed consideration of the request of the petitioners for payment of revised pension vide Ext.P8 judgment. The Government was also directed to consider whether a fresh opportunity should be given to the petitioners to opt in the light of the subsequent amendment of the Regulations with retrospective effect from the dates prior to the appointment of the petitioners.

5. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the Government passed Ext.P10 order rejecting the request of the petitioners relying on the unamended provisions of Regulation 7A(1) and (2) of the Regulations. It is stated therein that since there is no provision for exercising a re-option and since the petitioners had