The decision affirmed that once pension commutation is exercised, it is final and does not allow for reopening based on retirement dates.

JUDGMENT

[ WA 37/2011 ,WA.1144/2011 ,WA.1124/2011, WA.873/2011 ,WA.826/2011 ,WA.807/2011, WA.805/2011 ,WA.798/2011 ,WA.793/2011 ,WA.791/2011 ,WA.208/2011]

VINOD CHANDRAN, J Reference has been made to the Full Bench, by the Division Bench finding a conflict of opinion between two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Dasan v. State of Kerala [ 2014(4) KHC 747] and Kerala State Electricity Board v. P.N Raghukumar and others

2011(4) KHC 900 DB.

2. On the background facts, so much has to be noticed. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB, hereinafter) came out with a pay revision order as per B.O.(FB)No.2748/2008 (PS1/1428/2007) dated 11.11.2008. There were a batch of writ petitions filed challenging the Pay Revision Order dated 11.11.2008 to the extent it allegedly, discriminated between persons who retired prior to 01.09.2007 and after that. Though enhancement of pension was made common to all concerned there was a differentiation insofar as the limit prescribed for DCRG. The persons who retired prior to 01.09.2007 were entitled to DCRG with a limit of Rs.2,80,000/- where as persons who retired after 01.09.2007 would be entitled to a maximum of Rs.3,30,000/-. There was also discrimination alleged insofar as the commutation of pension; the permissible limit being 1/3rd of the basic pension prior to 01.09.2007 and 40% after that date. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions finding discrimination relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). The learned Single Judge found that the prescription of a cut off date violated the law declared by the Supreme Court.

3. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before a Division Bench. The Division Bench in P.N.Raghukumar (supra) found that D.S Nakara (supra) has been watered down by subsequent Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court and allowed the appeal. It was held that the KSEB had placed enough material to prove the financial constraints, economic conditions, and other administrative and attendant circumstances to justify the classification and there was nothing arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. While the appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the other writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge were disposed of following the earlier decision of the Single Bench. Those matters were brought up in appeal in the above batch of cases.

4. When the later appeals were placed before the Division Bench the Division Bench found an apparent conflict in the decisions in P.N Rakhukumar and Dasan(supra) and referred the matter. The Division Bench found that in Dasan (supra) two learned Judges have held that a classification should satisfy the twin test of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia and (ii) the same having a reasonable nexus to the object behind the legislation. The twin test was held to be satisfied only if the State establishes the intelligible differentia and co-relates it to the object sought to be achieved. Therein also, reliance placed was on the dictum of D.S Nakara (supra) to strike down the classification by prescription of a cut off date. The learned counsel for the respondents also contented that the decisions cited by the KSEB to put forth the argument of dilution of the principle in D.S Nakara (supra) were all by Benches of lesser denomination. It was on such aspects a reference was made for consideration before a Full Bench; to resolve the conflict in judicial opinion between the two Division Benches of this Court.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing the learned Senior Counsel Sri Raju Joseph appearing for the KSEB submitted before us that now the question of discrimination on the limit prescribed for DCRG no longer survives since, the same has been made uniform to all. The said fact has also been noticed by the Division Bench in P.N. Raghukumar (supra) in Paragraph

6.

6. The issue now arises only with respect to the commutatio