Historical contractual grounds for pension enhancements are not binding under the Pension Act, and doctrines like promissory estoppel do not apply without clear governmental promise.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners, 9 in number, have approached this Court by laying challenge to the order Ext.P11 dated 06.01.2015 rejecting the request for enhancement of Malikhana which has been brought under the definition of pension as per the policy decision of 1952.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in brief are that an agreement dated 15.11.1806 was entered between one Zamorin Raja with East India Company whereby, besides certain other conditions, it was incorporated under Article III thereof that the instalments of Malikhana shall be payable only to the receipt of the senior member of each Rajeum. The long and short of grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that Ministry of Home Affairs vide communication dated 08.10.1958 informed Chief Secretary of the Government of Kerala regarding the entitlement of Malikhana which have been treated as a political pension and reviewed in accordance with the cabinet decision of 1952, was liable to be revised at a future date. It was mentioned that as per the Madras Government decision dated 25.01.1954 allowances continued for present on the existing terms and conditions but were liable to be revised at a future date. Considering the aforementioned fact, Government of India was advised that in accordance with the Pension Act of 1871 political pension except those which come within the purview of Section 7(2) of the Act cannot be treated to be property and that the devolution of Malikhana allowances would not be governed by Section 3 of the Hindu Succession Act. Being the bounty of the Government it is open to grant to any one person. Government of India are of the view that Malikhana allowances should continue to senior member of each family concerned. Contents of letter sought to be implemented with the intervention of this Court by issuance of mandamus and quashing of decision Ext.P11 entailed into rejection of the request for enhancement.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar raised the argument that rejection of enhancement of scheme vide Ext.P11 dated 06.01.2015 is hit by doctrine akin to promissory estoppel as provided under Section 115 of the Indian evidence Act. In support of the aforementioned submissions, judgment of Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and Others v. Brahmputra Metalics Ltd., Ranchi and Another [2020 (13) SCALE] has been cited where the Government, by virtue of a contract/agreement accorded to grant a particular relief but thereafter rescinded, was held to be against the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In the instant case, vide Ext.P11 rejecting the enhancement of Malikhana payment treated to be a pension as per the Pension Act in view of the policy taken as far back as in 1952 attached as annexure -R1(c), there was no such provision of enhancement and it was held that the said benefit would be drawn by the senior member of the family. The policy guidelines were also subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.(C).No.11981/1992. Vide judgment dated 11.01.1999 Ext.R1(f) the said relief was rejected and affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2243/1999 Ext.R1(g). This Court has been informed that the said orders were also challenged before the Supreme Court but of no avail.

4. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the order Ext.P11 is a nonspeaking one without any valid reasons. There is no reference to the contract entered into Ext.P1 or reference to Ext.P2. Petitioners were never communicated with the policy decision taken in 1952 and vide Ext.P6 the Joint Commissioner vide communication dated 01.07.2011 had recommended to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, for revision of enhancement of Malikhana payment. The said letter has not be