C. M. MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was the Managing Director of Kalloorkad Farmers Cooperative Bank (for short 'the Bank'), has filed this Writ Petition to quash Ext. P5 Notification, Exts. P7 and P8 orders and also for a direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.66,096/- with interest towards pension arrears and to further direct the respondents to calculate pension of the petitioner including the dearness allowance. Petitioner retired from service on 31/03/1997.

(2.) The following are the material averments in the Writ Petition. There is discrimination between the persons who retired prior to 31/03/2000 and those who retired after the said date in the matter of calculating pension. The Government had introduced a Self Financing Pension Scheme for the retired employees of the Cooperative Societies under Ext. P1 Notification dated 14/03/1995 and constituted a Board. As per the Scheme pension is to be paid using the provident fund contribution made by the employees. The average pension payable to an employee is to be calculated commuting the basic pay and dearness allowance. Provident Fund is collected for both components. In the case of certain employees like the petitioner, dearness allowance was not included and hence he filed Ext. P2 representation. On 07/03/2001 first respondent issued Ext. P3 Notification amending the Scheme but pension of the petitioner was calculated without considering the entitlement of the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation. Thereafter the first respondent issued Ext. P5 Notification giving effect to Ext. P3 Notification only from 01/04/2000. In Ext. P5 the benefits given as per Ext. P4 were denied to the employees who had retired between 03/06/1993 and 31/03/1998. The pension payable to employees who retired after 1998 is calculated in accordance with Ext. P3 Government Order whereas in the case of employees who retired prior to that date dearness allowance will not be taken into account. According to the petitioner on account of the non inclusion of dearness allowance from 1993 to 1998 he had sustained a loss of Rs.66,096/-. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. Lok Ayukta directed the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders. But the first respondent passed an order on 17/10/2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as per Ext. P7 order. He filed another complaint before the Lok Ayukta which was dismissed in limine by the Lok Ayukta on 04/05/2004. Hence this Writ Petition to quash Ext. P5 Notification as also Exts. P7 letter and P8 order passed by the Lok Ayukta.

(3.) Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the Government had issued Notification in the year 1995 for payment of pension to the employees of Primary Cooperative Societies coming under the administration and control of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and which are not covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is contended that pension rules were amended with effect from 02/11/2001 so as to enable those who retired between 03/06/1993 and 31/03/1998 with monetary benefits from 01/04/2000. It is contended that as per that order, pension of the petitioner was revised from Rs.2,955/- to Rs.4,791/-. It is further contended that he is receiving the arrears of pension with effect from 01/04/2000 without remitting any additional pension contribution prior to that date. It is contended that pension rules were amended so as to make structural changes in the pension rules and as per the amendment, pension is 50% of the total salary. Salary includes basic pay and dearness allowance. It is contended that for getting pension with effect from 01/04/1998 the employer is required to remit additional pension contribution. But for getting arrears of pension with effect from 01/04/2000, the employer need not remit any additional contribution. It is contended that if the request of the petitioner is allowed, pension board will sustain huge loss which will affect the viability of the pension Scheme itself.