SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50976

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
M.VIJAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.A.NO.131 OF 2022 | W.A.NO.202 OF 2022 | WP(C) 12062/2021 | WP(C).NO.6411/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.K.SURESH KUMAR, T.P.PRADEEP, P.K.SATHEESH KUMAR, MINIKUMARY M.V.
For the Respondents: DEEPU THANKAN, BIJOY CHANDRAN

Discrimination against pensioners in Dearness Relief violates Article 14, as classifications must be rationally related to a lawful objective, ensuring equality before the law.

Headnote:(A) Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Discrimination in pension entitlement - The State Government allowed increased Dearness Allowance (DA) to employees but restricted Dearness Relief (DR) for pensioners, leading to claims of inequality. The Court found that once the Government decided to extend benefits, no discrimination could be established. (Paras 6, 10, 15)

(B) Reasonable classification - A valid classification must have a rational relationship to the objective of the law. Discrimination between employees and pensioners when addressing inflation is unjustifiable without a valid basis. (Paras 8, 15)

(C) Financial considerations - Although financial strain may justify varying treatment, once benefits are granted, equitable treatment is required. Discrimination based on the choice of the Government after deciding to extend benefits is impermissible. (Paras 6, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, retired employees of KSRTC, challenged the differential treatment in Dearness Relief paid to pensioners compared to active employees, asserting it violated their right to equality. The learned Single Judge dismissed their petition, declaring the groups (employees vs pensioners) to not be homogeneous.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the classification between pensioners and employees in DR and DA payments was discriminatory and violated Article 14. The Writ Appeals were allowed, reversing the Single Judge's decision.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether pensioners were discriminated against concerning DA/DR allowances, and if valid classification principles applied in this scenario.

Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that treating pensioners differently from active employees in the issue of DR was unconstitutional following the principle of equality before the law. The court underlined that classifications must be justifiable against the objective intended by the law.

Result: Writ Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these Writ Appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The appellants in the above Writ Appeal are retired employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC]. They are aggrieved by the alleged discrimination meted out to them in the matter of enhancement of Dearness Relief on their pensionary entitlements. Apparently, the State Government follows the practice of declaring Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief [DA/DR] to its employees and pensioners immediately on the Central Government declaring DA/DR for its employees and pensioners. In 2017 also, a similar exercise was undertaken through G.O.(P).No.6/2017/Fin. dated 19.1.2017 by enhancing the rate of DA/DR payable to employees/pensioners from 9% to 12% with effect from 1.7.2016. The State Government employees and pensioners accordingly received enhanced DA and DR at the rates of 105% with effect from 1.7.2016, 109% with effect from 1.1.2017 and 112% with effect from 1.7.2017. As regards the employees and pensioners of KSRTC, the Government orders enhancing the rates of DA and DR do not automatically apply but have to be specifically made applicable through Government orders issued from time to time. The usual practice is that on a Government order being issued, there would be a consequential order passed by the KSRTC extending the benefit of the G.O. to its employees and pensioners.

3. In terms of Ext.P1 G.O. and Ext.P2 order of the KSRTC, the enhancement of DA for employees of KSRTC followed the same pattern as the State Government employees, and accordingly, they were paid the enhanced DA @ 112% with effect from March, 2021. For the pensioners of KSRTC, however, the enhanced DR was paid only @ 109% with effect from March, 2021. The appellants herein therefore challenged the said G.O. and the orders of the KSRTC in the writ petitions inter alia contending that in offering differential rates of enhancement of DA/DR to the employees and pensioners of the KSRTC, the pensioners had been adversely discriminated against in the matter of sanctioning of DR. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions, dismissed the same on the finding that the employees and pensioners did not form a homogeneous group for the disbursement of DA/DR, and hence, in view of the fact that they formed different categories, they could not allege discrimination. The learned Judge also found that the appellants were not equal to the serving employees, since, by the living standards, a retired employee had to spend less when compared to the serving employee.

4. We have heard Sri.P.K. Suresh Kumar, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Sri.T.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSRTC as also Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State.

5. Before us, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants that while it may be true that the KSRTC was not obliged to extend the benefit of enhanced DA/DR to its employees and pensioners based on the Government Orders issued in respect of the State Government employees and pensioners, once it was decided to implement the said Government Orders even in the KSRTC, there could not have been a discrimination meted out to pensioners. It is his further contention that a discrimination would be manifest when the object of the benefit extended otherwise applies equally to both categories of persons namely employees and pensioners. The contention, in other words, is that DA/DR being an allowance to remedy the malaise of inflation, had to be seen as affecting both categories of persons namely, employees and pensioners, equally, and when so viewed, restricting a portion of the benefit to pensioners alone would fly in the face of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . He places

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top