Pensioners constitute a single homogenous class, and arbitrary cut-off dates that subdivide this group without a rational basis for the revision of pension benefits violate the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.2852/2022, DATED 20.03.2023.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.04.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

The appellant - Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) is in appeal against the Order dated 20.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2852/2022 (S-RES).

2. We have heard Shri. Akhilesha Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Shri. Pradyumna L. Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Nayana Tara B.G, learned counsel appearing for caveators/respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4 and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.5.

3. The writ petitioners were the family pensioners of employees of the appellant who died/retired prior to 01.07.2005. The question raised was whether the cut-off date fixed as 01.07.2005 for the applicability of revision of pension was justified. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case and relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 and All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. State of Manipur and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625, came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no justification in picking and choosing the date of 01.07.2005 for grant of the benefit of revision of family pension.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had instructed the panel counsel to file a counter-affidavit in the writ petition but no such counter-affidavit was filed. It is therefore contended that the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal that it had no financial capacity to pay the family pension benefits to all its employees including those who died/retired before 01.07.2005 is to be considered by this Court in this appeal. It is further contended that the decision in D.S. Nakara's case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the case and that the Apex Court has referred the decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association's case (supra), for consideration by a Larger Bench.

5. It is further contended that there exists a distinction between two classes of pensioners/employees receiving benefits and the law on this issue has undergone significant change post D.S. Nakara’s case (supra). Subsequent decisions of the Apex Court including Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 104, T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veeraswamy reported in (1999) 3 SCC 414 and West Bengal Government Pensioners Association v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 2 SCC 1979 have held that the ratio in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra) has limited application and cannot be applied to each case where the Government has created distinct classes for payment of pension based on well-founded reasons and intelligible differentia. The learned Single Judge erred in relying solely on All Manipur Pensioners Association’s case (supra) as the same is currently under review before a Full Bench of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. K.P. Nayar, by Order dated 15.02.2022 passed in SLP No.572/2021. The cut off date of 01.07.2005 in KPCL’s memo dated 0