RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the learned Single Judge was right in disposing this Original Petition alone while similar matters relating to the same issue is pending consideration. Appellants herein were some of the petitioners in O. P. 18695 of 2001. Original Petition was filed challenging Ext. P3 order dated 23.2.2001 revising the pension / family pension of the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 1.7.98 only. Appellants were officers of the Board who retired from service during the period from 1.3.1997 to 31.6.1998. Since the Board had implemented order of revision of pension only with effect from 1.7.1998 the appellants would not get the benefit of the revised pension. Challenging the said order Writ Petition was preferred by the appellants. They also sought for a declaration that the difference adopted by the Board in the grant of terminal benefits to the petitioners alone is discriminatory and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. A similar Writ Petition No. 17098/2001 was also filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board Pensioners Association raising identical points challenging the very same order has been admitted by the learned single Judge on 8.6.2001 and the same is pending consideration. When the present Writ Petition No. 18695/2001 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge on 12.7.2001 the learned Judge dismissed the same at the admission stage on merits by a detailed order.

(2.) We are of the view when a similar Writ Petition challenging the same order has already been admitted and pending consideration learned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the present Writ Petition at the admission stage. Learned Judge ought to have heard all the matters together and pass a common order. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . Apex Court took the view if there are two petitions involving identical point and one is admitted there is no justification in dismissing the other Writ Petition. Apex Court therefore set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to be heard along with the pending matter. Apex Court held as follows:

(3.) In the above mentioned circumstance we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the learned single. We admit O. P. No. 18695/2001 to be heard along with O. P. 17098. We make it clear we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.