KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. P N RAGHUKUMAR

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 01/07/2003. After their retirement pay revision was implemented. Consequent to the pay revision, orders were issued revising pension and other related benefits. Ext. P1 produced in WP (C) No. 37707/2009, against the judgment of which WA No. 1702/ 2010 is filed, is the pay revision order dated 11/11/2008. As per clause 6,1 of Ext. P1, the maximum amount of DCRG was raised from Rs.2,80,000 to Rs.3,30,000/- to those who retired on or after01/08/2006. For those who retired before 01/08/2006 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 01/09/2007. For those who retired from 01/07/2003 to 31/08/2007, only 1/ 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. P1 , 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 and Others v. Union of India, found that toe cut-off dates mentioned earlier are unsustainable. Consequently, clause 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 in Ext. P1 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.) 2008 KHC 4376 : 2008 (2) SCC 229 : 2008 (1) KLT SN 66 : AIR 2008 SC 856 : 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 926 2008 (62) AIC 73 : 2008 (1) LLJ 867 : 2008 (1) LLN 788 : 2008 (116) FLR 397 : 2008 (2) SLR 8.