Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26461 OF 2022 PETITIONER: MORIN.C., AGED 60 YEARS W/O. THOMAS THEKKEL, TC. 76/1770, THEKKEL HOUSE, KADAKAMPPALLY, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029 (RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, ALL SAINT'S COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) . BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(BCK/443/1981) RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2022. When this matter was called today, the learned
counsel on either sides were ad idem that all the issues
in this case have already been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.22675/2021 and connected matters.
2. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner herein are deserving of being granted the same benefits, as have been offered to those in the afore
judgment.
3. Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the
limited extent of directing the Government to reconsider Clause 6.1 of the Government Order bearing No.GO(P)No.38/2021/Fin. dated 25.02.2021, as also its subsequent order bearing No.GO(P)No.162/2021/Fin. dated 02.12.2021, in the conspectus of the observations in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22675/2021 and adverting specifically to the precedents cited therein.
4. The afore exercise shall be done by the
Government, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representatives; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. Needless to say, even though I have not
quashed the order dated 25.02.2021 or even Clause 6.1 of the same, I am certain that Government must consider the claims of the petitioner, including by modification of the said Clause - if it is so warranted, adverting to the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; in which event, all necessary consequences will thereafter follow, without any avoidable delay. I am persuaded to the afore view also because even when the State pleads financial stringency, only the pensioners are put to detriment, without any other sections being asked to shoulder the responsibility. In fact, the pensioner is the more vulnerable category - they having reached the autumn of his lives; and reduction of his financial support would certainly put them to greater prejudice than the persons who are in service or who are younger. This will also be kept in mind by the Government while issuing the orders in terms of the afore directions. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj. 19.08.2022. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26461/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.18/2019/H.EDN. DATED 29.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION OF PENSION
AND FAMILY PENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 11TH PAY REVISION COMMISSION G.O.(P) NO. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.151/2020/FIN DATED 5.11.2020 ISSUED BY FINANCE (PENSION-B) DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. THE FINANCE (PENSION-B) DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 2/2021- 22/UGC REVISION DATED 23.4.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.