PHILIP MATHEW Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 to 14 are retired Professors, while the 15th petitioner is the retired Director of Physical Education at the University of Calicut University. The writ petition is essentially filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to restore the pensionary benefits that were given to the petitioners vide Exts.P4 and P6.

(2.) The State Government used to revise the pension and related benefits consequent on the revision of the scale of pay of State Government employees and teachers every five years. However, the UGC revision occurs every ten years, and therefore, it was a practice that after the State revision orders, the Government used to issue an interim revision for the UGC pensioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted interim State revised pension as per Ext.P1 from 1/7/2004. The first UGC pension revision was issued by the Government vide GO(P)No.211/2011/Fin. dtd. 7/5/2011 (Ext.P3). The issue involved in this case is with respect to the fixation of UGC revision of pension/family pension.

(3.) The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.24761/2012, wherein, they challenged the order which had the effect of reducing their pension. This Court interfered and set aside the order and directed orders to be passed with notice to the petitioners and consequently Ext.P20 was passed which the petitioners challenge to the extent it reduced the quantum of pensionary benefits. The petitioners contend that the UGC Pension granted to them as per Exts.P4 and P5 is in accordance with the existing Government Orders and the re-fixation of the same as per Ext.P20 is illegal. They also submit that the pension is granted in compliance with Ext.P3 Government Order, in particular, clause 3.1 of the same. They submit that to arrive at the revised UGC pension, the revised basic pension enjoyed by the petitioners by adding the intermittent pension to the fitment benefit and Dearness allowance and the calculation made as per the UGC revised pension vide Exts.P4 and P5 must be reckoned, and there is no reason to vary the same through Ext.P20. It is also their submission that the other Universities had calculated pension on the basis of the basic pension and not on the basis of the pre-revised pension. The petitioners also contend that the University could not have taken a decision contrary to the decision taken by the Syndicate vide Ext.P17 that directed the restoration of Exts.P4 and P5. They also submit that a reduction in the pension could not have been made without notice to them and that going by the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in particular, Rules 8 and 9, a pension once sanctioned after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the Government servant unless such a revision becomes necessary on account of a clerical error subsequently found out.