JOSE.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claim for the benefit of 5% increase in the monthly basic pension, as provided to persons who had superannuated after 01.03.2002, in terms of Ext.P4 Government Order. Petitioners submit that the 7th pay revision was implemented from 01.03.1997 and the 8th pay revision was implemented from 01.07.2004. According to them, the 8th pay revision ought to have been implemented from 01.03.2002 itself. It seems that the Government issued Ext.P4 Government Order by which those persons who were superannuated after 1.3.2002 were given an increase of 5% in the existing monthly pension with effect from 01.04.2009. The operative portion of Ext.P4 would indicate that such a decision had to be taken by the government on considering various representations from unions of service and pensioners complaining that the employees and teachers who retired from service during the period from 01.03.2002 to 30.06.2004, did not get due benefit of pension revision as per government order dated 18.04.2006 since the pay revision was given only with effect from 01.07.2004, subsequent to pay revision, 1997, which came into effect from 01.03.1997. It is in the said circumstances, that the government decided to extent the benefit of giving 5% increase pension to all those persons who were covered by Ext.P4 order.

(2.) EXT .P7 is a communication by virtue of which the representation of similarly placed persons was rejected by the government inter alia indicating that Ext.P4 order had been issued after due consultation and since Ext.P4 order had been issued as a special case after a decision was taken by the members of the cabinet, and having decided to fix a cut off date, no changes could be made.

(3.) GOVERNMENT has filed counter affidavit supporting the stand taken in Exts.P4 and P7. According to them Ext.P4 Government Order itself clarifies under what circumstances such concession has been extended to persons who superannuated after 01.03.2002 up to 30.06.2004. Ext.P4 order was issued, since the employees who retired from service during the period from 01.03.2002 to 30.06.2004 did not get due benefits of the government order dated 18.04.2006 as it was given effect only from 01.07.2004 subsequent to the pay revision order of the year1997, which came into force from 01.03.1997 and that Ext.P4 government order does not stipulate the length of qualifying service of the beneficiaries. It is therefore contended that when the order is very specific and that it is not applicable to the petitioners, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being discriminatory or denial of equal treatment.