Government Orders cannot apply retrospectively to deny pensionary benefits based on service commenced prior to their enactment.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as Research Associate (Linguistics) with the 2^nd respondent University pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 17.08.2013. However, prior to the said appointment, the petitioner had two spells of service: the first with the Anthropological Survey of India from 19.08.1992 to 13.06.2008 and the second with the Dravidian University from

16.06.2008 to 20.08.2013.

2. The petitioner raised a claim before the 2^nd respondent University that his service in the Anthropological Survey of India as well as in the Dravidian University may also be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the length of service. The 2^nd respondent University sought clarifications in the matter. In the meantime, the National Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced with effect from 01.04.2013. The petitioner submitted an option, with respect to the NPS, to continue under the Statutory Pension Scheme, and pursuant to Ext.P9 order dated 12.12.2018, the 2^nd respondent University accepted the said option. However, it was observed that the petitioner's earlier service, as noticed above, could be reckoned for the purpose of benefits only upon receipt of the requisite contributions from the aforesaid institutions.

4. The Dravidian University, pursuant to Ext.P10 communication dated 25.03.2019, forwarded a demand draft for an amount of Rs.4,46,173/- representing the balance in the GPF account. This was followed by Ext.P14 communication dated 23.02.2023 forwarding an amount of Rs.18,75,812/-, representing the capitalised value of pension as well as the gratuity due to the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of the above, the petitioner contends that the service benefits in respect of his service with the Anthropological Survey of India were first transferred to the Dravidian University and thereafter the entire benefits, including those pertaining to the service in the Anthropological Survey of India and the Dravidian University, were forwarded to the 2^nd respondent herein.

5. However, in the meantime, the Government issued Ext.P13 order dated 18.07.2022, finding that insofar as there is no mobility with respect to the service rendered in the institutions like the afore, such service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits in Kerala. On that basis, the petitioner's claim was considered by the Government and rejected by Ext.P16 order, holding that the petitioner's earlier service in the Anthropological Survey of India and the Dravidian University would not be reckoned for pensionary benefits. The same stand was reiterated in Ext.P18 communication dated 02.12.2023 issued by the Government. Aggrieved by Exts.P16 and P18, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition.

6. I have heard Smt. Kavya Varma M.M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the claim of the petitioner has been denied on the basis of Ext.P13 Government Order. According to her, the said Government Order was issued only on 18.07.2022 and, since the petitioner had joined the service of the 2^nd respondent as early as in the year 2013, the interdiction under Ext.P13 cannot be made applicable to him.

8. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would seek to sustain the impugned orders, pointing out that insofar as there was no mobility with respect to the service rendered by the petitioner in the aforesaid organisations, the mandate under Ext.P13 would apply to the petitioner.

9. I have considered the rival submissions as