P.K.PRABHAKARA KURUP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who superannuated from service on 31.5.1996 as Selection Grade Lecturer, claims enhanced commutation of pension as per the revision of scales brought in by Ext.P10, made effective from 1.1.1996 and also payment of DCRG by virtue of enhancement of the maximum limit from Rs.80,000/- to Rs 2,80,000/- as provided in Ext.P9. The claim of the appellant was that Ext.P9 provided for revision in pensionary benefits with effect from 1.3.1997 and the said date having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, fixation of such date, results in discrimination in so far as creating two class of pensioners, i.e., one who have retired prior to 1.3.1997 and others who have retired after 1.3.1997. The learned Single Judge, however, found that there is no discrimination in so far as there was an altogether new scheme of revision of pay introduced with effect from 1.3.1997, in the Government Service, as a consequence of which Ext.P9 came to be issued providing revision of pensionary benefits as also enhancement in the maximum limits of DCRG. The entitlement to commutation of pension to the extent of the revision granted in UGC Scheme, 1998 with effect from 1.1.1996 as per Ext.P10 was also negated.

(2.) WE have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. O.V Radhakrishnan and Special Government Pleader (Finance) Sri. Sunil Syriac. The learned Senior counsel would contend that the primary fallacy which the learned Single Judge committed is in finding that the revision of pay was a new scheme, while the appellant had been continuing under the UGC Scheme from 1986 onwards. In fact, the appellant had joined the College from which he superannuated as a Junior Lecturer in the year 1969 and was also granted due promotions. While the appellant was continuing as Professor Grade I (Non-cadre), the Government by G.O dated 23.1.1991 decided to implement the University Grants Commission Scheme, 1986 and the appellant was absorbed in the said scheme and re-designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade); from which post he retired on 31.5.1996.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader, per contra, would contend that Ext.P9 is not an additional benefit conferred under the existing scheme but has been brought in as a consequence of the pay revision effected in the Government as on 1.3.1997 by G.O(P)3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. He specifically points out, Clause 23 wherein it is stated that the orders will be applicable to College teachers who come under the UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Scheme scales of pay. The fitment benefit has been made applicable to the pre-1.3.1997 pensioners/family pensioners as provided in Ext.P9 Government Order itself. But, however, ceiling on DCRG has been enhanced only with effect from 1.3.1997, making it clear that only persons who retired on or after 1.3.1997 and entitled for revision of pay would be entitled to such enhanced maximum limit. The revision of pay brought in, would make the maximum limit of DCRG at Rs.80,000/-, prescribed on the basis of the pre- revised scale; insignificant and there would be a total lack of nexus in the DCRG entitlement and revised last pay drawn and this was sought to be ameliorated by raising the ceiling of DCRG, is the contention. This would not be applicable to those pensioners who retired on the pre-revised scale of pay. Ext.P10 was a revision of pay scale granted to the persons continuing in the UGC Scheme made effective from 1.1.1996 and there cannot be any further claim for DCRG or commutation of pension since Ext.P10 confines itself to the pay drawn under the UGC Scheme and does not at all take in any benefits, like DCRG or pension payable. The 80% financial assistance with respect to the additional expenditure is also with respect to pay revision and that is made clear by the fact that Clause (c) of Ext.P10 limits such financial assistance for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. Exts.P9 and P10 cannot at all be correlated, is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader.