Retrospective amendments to pension rules cannot divest vested rights of retired employees regarding pension calculations.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. The Petitioner is a retired employee of the Respondent No.1/Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board who retired from the service on 31.10.2008 while he was working as its Accounts Officer. The Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent No.1 on 13.06.1983. Prior to the joining of service of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner had been working in the Respondent No.3/ESI Corporation for the period from 13.06.1978 to 10.06.1983. The Representations of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 to reckon the service of the Petitioner in the Respondent No.3 for fixation of pension and pensionary benefits were rejected by the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 as per Exts.P4 and P5. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 Orders and seeking to declare that the service rendered by the Petitioner in the Respondent No.3 is liable to be reckoned for fixing pensionary benefits and to direct the Respondents to re-fix the same taking into account the said service and to disburse the same.

2. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2009. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as per judgment dated 31.01.2023, holding that Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, ‘KSR’) refers only to the State Government and not the State Autonomous Bodies, and hence the same is not applicable to the Petitioner who had been working with the Respondent No.1.

3. The Petitioner filed W.A. No.1343/2023 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench disposed of the said Writ Appeal by judgment dated 03.11.2023, setting aside the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and remanding the Writ Petition for fresh consideration holding that the contentions of the Petitioner that Note 2 under Rule 11 as it stood as on the date of Petitioner's retirement from service permitted the counting of service put in by the employees retiring from the State Government/Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings under such Government to be counted for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service and pensionary benefits and that since Part III of KSR was adopted in toto by the Service Regulations applicable to the Khadi &Village Industries Board, all the amendments would be automatically applicable to the employees governed by the said Regulations as well, were not considered by the learned Single Judge.

4. After the remand, the Petitioner amended the Writ Petition incorporating the challenge against the retrospective amendment of Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as per Ext.P7 Government Order dated 22.11.2010, omitting the application of the provision to the prior service in Central Public Sector Undertakings, with effect from 12.11.2002. The Petitioner impleaded the Secretary to the Finance Department of the State as additional Respondent No.5.

5. Originally, the Respondent No.1 had filed Statement dated 11.11.2009 producing Exts.R1(a) to R1(f), the Respondent No.2/State of Kerala had filed Counter Affidavit dated 22.06.2010 and the Respondent No.3 had filed Counter Affidavit dated 14.01.2010. After amendment of the Writ Petition, the Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit dated 08.08.2025 and the Additional Respondent No.5 filed Counter Affidavit dated 01.02.2025.

6. I heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Asif Ali M.H., the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. M. Sharafuddeen, and the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustin, for