T SARASWATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the supplemental second petitioner in W.P. (C) No.6284 of 2010, a writ petition filed by her husband (Professor (Dr.) S.Balaraman) who was a Member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission during the period from 16.12.1998 to 15.12.2003. During the last two months of his tenure, he was also the acting Chairperson of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short. More than two years after demitting office, he submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 15.01.2006 to the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, with a request that sanction may be accorded to revise his pensionery benefits with effect from 16.12.2003, taking into account his service in the Commission. About four years thereafter, he filed W.P.(C) No.6284 of 2010 in this court on 24.02.2010, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) He contended in the writ petition that as the salary and allowances and other service conditions of a Member of the Commission are the same as that of a Judge of the High Court, he is entitled to additional pension as provided under Clause 2(b) of Part III of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Reliance was placed on Rules 9 and 11 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) in support of the said contention. The State of Kerala resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it inter alia contended that as the Rules do not stipulate grant of pension for the service rendered by the Chairperson or a Member of the Commission, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable. It was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to additional pension, taking into account his service as a Member of the Commission, over and above the pension sanctioned to him for the service rendered by him as Registrar of the University of Calicut and as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The State even contended that it has not received Ext.P3 representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner passed away and thereupon, his wife Smt.P.Saraswathy, got herself impleaded as the supplemental second petitioner as per order passed on 207.2013 on I.A.No.9745 of 201 W.P.(C) No.6284 of 2010 was thereafter heard and dismissed by judgment delivered on 02.02.2017. The learned single Judge held that in the absence of any stipulation in the Rules to the effect that the service rendered by a Member of the Commission is pensionable, the claim raised in the writ petition is not tenable. The supplemental petitioner in W.P. (C) No.6284 of 2010 has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal.