High Court Kerala High Court

S.V.Unnikrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
S.V.Unnikrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1390 of 2010(W)


1. S.V.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, `KRISHNA',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
                      S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C)No. 1390 of 2010
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from service of the Government

of Kerala on 31.05.1985 as Taluk Panchayat Officer.

Subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, the post of

Taluk Panchayat Officer was abolished. According to the

petitioner, while he was in service the post of Taluk

Panchayat Officer was a promotion post for the post of

Special Executive Officer/Special Grade Secretary. The

petitioner submits that the pension now he is getting is only

equivalent to the pension payable to a Special Grade

Secretary which was a lower post to the post of Taluk

Panchayat Officer, which the petitioner was holding at the

time of his retirement. The petitioner contends that the

same is a very serious anomaly affecting the fundamental

rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 & 16 of the

Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, since the

W.P.(C)No. 1390 of 2010
-2-

post of Taluk Panchayat Officer was a higher post to that as

Special Grade Secretary that difference should reflect in the

retirement benefits payable also. The petitioner would

contend that in the special circumstances of the case the

petitioner should have been paid pension corresponding to

the pension being payable to the next higher post of

Assistant Director of Panchayat.

2. The learned Government Pleader would submit

that, the method of computing pension in respect of posts

which were abolished after retirement of the incumbent is

laid down in paragraph 3.9 of G.O.(P) No.180/06/Fin dated

18.04.2006 which reads as follows:

“3.9. If the post held by the pensioner at the time of
retirement/death while in service is no longer in existence in the
Department from which he retired or if the entire categories to
which the pensioner belonged have moved over to other scales
of pay (such as, for example, UGC/AICTE/Central Judicial
Service scales) after his retirement/death while in service or if
the designation of the post has changed in such a way that it is
no longer possible to ascertain as to which is the revised scale
corresponding to the post from which the pensioner/employee
retired/died while in service, the revised basic pension shall be
fixed based on the corresponding scale of pay, over successive
pay revisions, as indicated in Schedule 3.”

The learned Government Pleader points out that, in view of

W.P.(C)No. 1390 of 2010
-3-

the peculiar situation, the petitioner is being paid pension in

accordance with the revised scale of pay corresponding to

the scale of pay the petitioner was receiving as Taluk

Panchayat Officer and the petitioner cannot aspire to get

anything more. But the counsel for the petitioner submits

that, that pension is only equivalent to the pension payable

to the Special Grade Secretary which according to the

petitioner is an anomaly which requires to be corrected

appropriately.

3. I am not going into the merits of the rival

contentions insofar as the petitioner has already invoked

the jurisdiction of the Government in the matter by filing

Ext.P1 representation. For the present the petitioner would

be satisfied with a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 as expeditiously as

possible.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of

this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 as expeditiously as

W.P.(C)No. 1390 of 2010
-4-

possible, at any rate within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

shg/