KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAGHUNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in these connected Writ Appeals is one and the same, these appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment. The appellants are common in all the appeals. The respondents were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The appellants represent the Board. The respondents retired from the service of the Board on various dates subsequent to 1-7-2003. After their retirement, pay revision was implemented. Consequent to the pay revision, orders were issued revising pension and other related benefits. Ext.P-1 produced in W.P.(C) No.37707/2009, against the Judgment of which W.A.No. 1702/2010 is filed, is the Pay Revision Order dated 11-11-2008. As per Clause 6.1 of Ext.P-1, the maximum amount of DCRG was raised from Rs. 2,80,000 to Rs. 3,30,000 to those who retired on or after 1-8-2006. For those who retired before 1-8-2006 the limit of DCRG was retained at Rs. 2,80,000. As per Clause 7.1 the existing rate of 1/3rd of the basic pension for commutation was enhanced to 40% based on the revised pay in the case of those who retired on or after 1-9-2007. For those who retired from 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2007, only l/3rd of the pension admissible on the pre-revised pay was allowed to be commuted. In other way, the respondents were declared not entitled to commute the pension admissible on the revised pay. Aggrieved by Ext.P-1, the respondents moved the Writ Petitions. They would allege that the cut-off date mentioned earlier is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and sought for quashing the same. They further sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to revise the commuted value of pension and to grant DCRG in par with those who retired subsequent to the dates mentioned earlier.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, though found that it may be possible for the Board to justify a cut-off date and denial of revised benefits to those who retired subsequent to the cut-off dates, in the light of the decision in D. S. Nakara & ors. v. Union of India, found that the cut-off dates mentioned earlier are unsustainable. Consequently, Clauses 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 in Ext.P-1 were quashed to the extent it discriminated the employees on the basis of their dates of retirement and directed the appellants to extend the benefit of revised DCRG and commutation of pension uniformly to the respondents without discrimination on the basis of their date of retirement. Assailing the above judgment, these Writ Appeals were filed.

(3.) IN the light of the above rulings of the Apex Court, we find that the Apex Court had watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's case and Nakara's case is no more a good law. IN the light of the above rulings, we find that the cut-off date fixed by the appellants in Ext. P-1 keeping in view of the economic conditions, financial constraints and other administrative and attending circumstances is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor illegal. The appellants are justified in fixing a cut-off date to limit the benefit of revision and the learned Single Judge went wrong in interfering with the order impugned. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in this case the appellants had not shown any good reasons, namely, the financial conditions and financial constraints for fixing a cut-off date. It is true that before us there is no material produced. But, we find that it is not at all necessary for the appellants to produce such materials to come to a conclusion that there are financial restraints or that the economical conditions is not satisfactory to extend the benefit to all, irrespective of the date of retirement, especially, when the respondents had not brought forward any material to show that such cut-off dates were determined with any mala fides. IN the above circumstance, we find no merit in the contention advanced by the respondents. The judgment impugned is not sustainable and liable to be interfered.