C.C.JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are all retired Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors, who claimed before the Tribunal that they are also entitled to the benefit of Annexure-A1 G.O. [the Annexures are referred to as produced in the O.A.]. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were not allowed the 4th Time Bound Higher Grade on completion of 27 years service merely for reason of the G.O. having come after their retirement, which was also specifically stated to be prospective.

(2.) The Tribunal found that when an additional benefit is granted, it is perfectly within the domain of the Government to decide as to whether it should be prospective or retrospective. The Government having decided to grant the benefit prospectively, there could be no interference caused, was the finding.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the benefit of 4th Higher Grade emanated from the 2009 Pay-revision orders, which is specifically referred to in Annexure- A1. The recommendations of Pay-revision were granted to all Government Officers by the implementing GOs, but the Civil Police Officers [CPOs] were excluded. There was clear discrimination in so excluding the CPOs and the date of the G.O. [Annexure-A1] has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is argued that the cut off date being 11.07.2013 cannot be sustained, especially since the Pay-revision benefits were granted with retrospective effect from 2007. Though the petitioners may not be entitled to claim arrears of pay, at least notional fixation in the 4th Higher Grade should be allowed and the pension fixed accordingly. Reliance is also placed on Kamala Devi v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd . [2002 (1) KLT 157] and D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305] to bring home the contention of discrimination.