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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
VARGHESE V.E (DECEASED) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1072 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.SURESH, SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.V.RAJENDRAN (SR.), SRI.SOHAIL MOHAMMED ANSARY

Court affirms right to pension based on last position held, enforcing past judgments.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking the quashing of certain government orders affecting pension benefits for a former judicial officer. The court analyzed Rule 62 KSR and cited prior judgments affirming the petitioner's rights to a pension based on previous service. The court found merit in the petitioner's claims and directed a revision of pension. The final order mandates compliance within three months.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“A] Issuing a writ of certiorari or such such other writ or order as this hon'ble court deems appropriate quashing Ext. P8;

B] Declaring that Note 7 to Rule 62 KSR and Note 11 to Rule 63 KSR violate Ext. P6 judgment and are hence liable to be struck down or quashed;

C] Issuing a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order as this hon'ble court deems appropriate directing the 1st respondent to revise the pension of the petitioner taking into account his service as Munsiff-Magistrate at the time of his superannuation and on the basis of the pay and allowances drawn by him at such time of superannuation with effect from

1-9-2002.

D] Such other reliefs as this hon'ble court deems fit and expedient to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The contention of the petitioner is that while working as Sheristadar, District Court, he was appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate (Temporary) under Rule 9 of the Kerala Judicial Services Rules, 1991. Petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2022 while he was serving in the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that his pension was fixed in the post of Sheristadar, whereas he is eligible for pension taking into account his service as Munsiff-Magistrate at the time of his superannuation and on the basis of the pay and allowances drawn by him at the time of superannuation with effect from 01.09.2002. Petitioner submits that this issue was considered by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.36930 of 2016, wherein paragraph 3 reads as follows:

“3. The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that going by Ext.P11 Government Order, which has been subsequently issued, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on Exts.P7 to P10 judgments of this Court, which, while considering an identical issue, had held that in the absence of any repatriation of persons who are on deputation to another service, and where a person retired from the deputed post, the last pay drawn by him in the deputed post, from which he retired would have to be taken for the purposes of payment of pension and other benefits. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and finding that the case of the petitioner is identical, I allow the writ petition by quashing Exts.P11, P15 and P18 to the extent they deny the benefits sought for by the petitioner and direct the respondents to sanction and disburse the pension and other retirement benefits including medical reimbursement to the petitioner based on the last pay drawn by him as per Ext.P13 in the cadre of Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The respondents shall pass necessary orders in this regard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ”

3. Both sides would submit that as per the judgment in W.A.No.1768 of 2018 dated 22.08.2025, a Division Bench of this Court has approved the findings in W.P.(C) No.36930 of 2016. Paragraph 6 of the judgment in W.A.No.1768 of 2018 reads as follows:

“6. Heard learned counsel on both sides. It is not in dispute that the Government Order dated 22.06.2018 which came up for consideration in other writ petitions has been set aside meaning thereby there would be no applicability of the same in the case of respondents 1 and 2. The issue raised in the writ petition already stands answered in WP(C) No.21382 of 2009 and WP(C) No.36930 of 2016 as per judgments dated 11.03.2011 and 14.12.2016 respectively, where similar issues have been dealt. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. However, the appellants are directed to refix and disburse all the pensionary benefits to respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of their last pay drawn as Munsiff/Magistrate, if not already implemented, within a pe

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