IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27910 of 2008(V)
1. P.K.CHATHU, OVERSEER (RTD),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE
3. FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :03/12/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27910 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from
service on 31.8.1998. On his retirement, he was sanctioned
pension and other terminal benefits. By Ext.P1, he was
sanctioned a monthly pension of Rs.1594/= plus dearness relief
at the applicable rates. Later, the pension payable to employees
of the Kerala State Electricity Board was revised with effect from
1.7.1998 as per Ext.P2 order dated 23.2.2001. According to the
petitioner, on an incorrect application of paragraph 11 of Ext.P2,
his pension stood reduced by Rs.329/= per mensem. The
petitioner contends that such reduction in pension is not
contemplated, when the pension revision order is implemented
and that the respondents have not correctly noticed or applied
W.P.(C) No. 27910/2008
2
paragraph 11 of Ext.P2, when his pension was revised. The
stand taken by the respondents is that paragraph 11 of Ext.P2
protects only the drop in pension and not any reduction in the
dearness relief. Paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 which is relevant reads
as follows:-
"11) For computing the ten months
emoluments for the purpose of average
emoluments for pension, in respect of employees
who retired from service on 1.7.1998 or after and
who, during part of the said period of 10 months,
drew pay in the pre-revised scale, their pay in pre-
revised scale may be enhanced notionally by
adding DA at 1510 points of AICPI admissible to
serving employees as on 1.1.1996. If any drop
shall be protected as personal allowance not to be
absorbed in future increase in dearness Relief. ”
3. On a reading of paragraph 11 of Ext.P2, it is
evident that the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable.
Paragraph 11 specifically stipulates that if there is a drop in the
existing pension after revision, such drop shall be protected as
personal allowance and shall not be absorbed in future increase in
dearness relief. The stipulations in paragraph 11 indicate that
what is protected is the monthly pension and not the pension
W.P.(C) No. 27910/2008
3
component alone. In other words, if following the
implementation of Ext.P2, the pension drawn by a pensioner is
reduced from what he was drawing earlier, the difference shall be
protected as personal allowance. On the terms of paragraph 11
of Ext.P2, such personal allowance cannot be absorbed against
future increases in dearness relief. In other words, paragraph 11
of Ext.P2 protects the pension that the pensioner was drawing
prior to Ext.P2, including the dearness relief component as well.
4. In the view that I have taken, I quash Ext.P3 to
the extent it reduces the pension payable to the petitioner by
Rs.329/= per mensem. The respondents are directed to re-fix
the pension payable to the petitioner in terms of paragraph 11
of Ext.P2 and compute the arrears thereof taking note of the
periodical increases in dearness relief. Arrears of pension after
re-fixation shall be paid within three months from today. The
respondents shall also continue to pay the revised pension to the
petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 27910/2008
4
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that for no fault of the petitioner, a portion of the pension was
withheld, and that in the light of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Dua v. State of Haryana (2008 (3) KLT 58), the
petitioner is entitled to be compensated by award of interest.
However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that in the instant case, it was on a wrong
understanding of paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 that the Board issued
Ext.P3 and that pension payable to the petitioner was not
deliberately withheld. He further submits that the authorities in
the Board responsible for fixing and disbursing terminal benefits
bona fide believed that interpretation placed by them on
paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 is the correct interpretation, and
therefore, award of interest is not called for.
6. From the materials on record, it is evident that
there was a bona fide doubt as to whether the petitioner is
entitled to protection of the pension component alone or whether
the pension as a whole including the dearness relief is protected.
W.P.(C) No. 27910/2008
5
There was no culpable negligence on the part of the respondents
in the matter of re-fixation of the petitioner’s pension. In such
circumstances, I find no reason to award interest on the arrears
of pension which the petitioner is entitled to receive in
implementation of the directions issued herein.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE
nj.