Kerala High Court
Sunimol P.K vs State Of Kerala Represented By Chief ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
WA NO. 714 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:25810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 714 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2026 IN WP(C) NO.37160 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 SUNIMOL P.K
AGED 49 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
2 DILEEP E.R
AGED 34 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
3 REVATHI M. NAIR
AGED 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
4 SYAMPRASAD T.A
AGED 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
5 VINEETH KRISHNAN V
AGED 36 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
WA NO. 714 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:25810
6 KIRAN M.J
AGED 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
7 DIPIN THILAKAN
AGED 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
8 AMBILY S
AGED 36 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
9 HARI PRASAD C.M
AGED 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
0 JEFFIN DAVIS K
AGED 37 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV SHRI.MATHEWS K. NELLUVELY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PENSION
A) DEPARTMENT
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (C)
DEPARTMENT
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
GENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, KOCHI-, PIN - 682031
WA NO. 714 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:25810
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE -GP;SRI B G
HARINDRANATH(SR.); SRI AMITH KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 714 OF 2026
4
2026:KER:25810
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March 2026 Devan Ramachandran, J The appellants are before us in an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.37160 of 2023.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the limited plea of the appellants was that they be allowed to continue under the statutory scheme of pension, as available under the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), rather than being thrust into the National Pension Scheme (NPS)- brought into effect under the provisions of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013 ( the 'Act' for short).
3. Sri.Mathew K.Nelluvely - learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the learned Single Judge did not consider his clients' specific plea that the NPS is a scheme stipulated under the Act for a national application; and consequently that, every notification issued by the Government of India would enjoin the States also to follow suit and issue appropriate notifications. He explained that even though Ext.P3 notification was issued by the Government of Kerala, bringing into force NPS for all employees who were appointed after its date, it has not acted in spite of Ext.P7 subsequent WA NO. 714 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:25810 notification of the Government of India, which he says, was issued under Section 54 of the Act, which renders it clear that every employee appointed even after the cut-off date in the notification, but the recruitment process for which started prior to it, be able to exercise one limited option to either continue with the statutory pension scheme, or move over to the NPS. He argued that, inspite of Ext.P7 having been issued by the Government of India, the Government of Kerala has chosen to disregard it and not to offer such an option. He argued that this has been omitted by the learned Single Judge to consider; and consequently that, his clients have been constrained to approach this Court.
4. Sri.B.G. Harindranath, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Amith Krishnan - appearing for the High Court, submitted that his client does not have any specific comment to make in this issue, apart from the fact that they are bound to follow the notifications of the Government of Kerala based on the Act. He, however, suggested that, prima facie, the argument of the appellants may not find luster for the singular reason that there is a specific situation in Kerala, namely, that those who continue under the statutory scheme will have to retire at the age of 56, while those who are under the NPS would do so only at the age of 60. The learned Senior Counsel WA NO. 714 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:25810 concluded saying that, it being a matter of policy of the Government of Kerala, he does not want to make any further comment.
5. Sri.Sunil Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, explained argued that the Government of Kerala had taken a policy decision to adopt the NPS with effect from 01.04.2013; and that Ext.P3 notification stands testimony to this. He argued that the modifications that the Government of India may make under Section 54 of the Act - which he asserted was only for the purpose of removal of difficulties - would not obligate the Government of Kerala to issue the same; and that an argument to the contrary is not tenable. He relied upon a judgment of this Court, delivered by another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.737 of 2023, in support of his contentions, that there is no reciprocal obligation on the State Governments to issue notifications, when the Central Government does so under Section 54 of the Act.
6. We have considered the afore submissions on the touchstone of the observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
7. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the proposition that, once the Government of Kerala had issued Ext.P3 notification introducing the NPS, the appellants will be governed by the same. We WA NO. 714 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:25810 do not think that there is any controversy on this proposition and because this is also conceded by Sri.Mathew Nelluvely.
8. However, the specific contention of the appellants is that, when they are governed by the NPS in terms of Ext.P3 Government Order, which in turn, is intended for a national uniformity, the notification issued by the Government of India subsequently, including under Section 54 of the Act, would vender it enjoined on them to follow suit and cause a concommitant such independent notification to be issued.
9. We notice that the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect at all.
10. As matters now stand, it is submitted that the appellants had moved the Government of Kerala relying upon Ext.P7 notification of the Government of India, with a contention that the former should also make such a notification. The Government of Kerala, however, is yet to take a decision thereon and the representation is stated to be still pending.
11. As rightly argued by Sri.B.G.Harindranath - learned Senior Counsel for the High Court of Kerala, the contention of the appellants are essentially in the realm of policy of the Government of Kerala, at least at the first instance. They ought to be given an WA NO. 714 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:25810 opportunity of considering the said representation and to take a final decision on the contention that any notification that the Government of India, including under Section 54 of the Act, would automatically make the former also liable to follow suit. This issue, as we have said above and merely to reiterate, has not seized the attention of the learned Single Judge, nor has it been answered.
12. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion, particularly in view of the Judgment afore referred in W.A.No.737 of 2023, that it must be left to the Government of Kerala to take a decision at the first instance, before the appellants can obtain legal recourse. This is more so because, even though Sri.Mathew Nelluvely - learned counsel for the appellants, says that his clients have preferred representations, copies of none of them have been placed on record.
13. We, consequently, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge; with liberty to the appellants to approach the competent Authority of the Government with an apposite representation, detailing all their contentions and their grievances; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the said Authority in terms of law, after affording them, or their representatives, an opportunity of being heard; thus WA NO. 714 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:25810 culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible.
Though we have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions, we deem it necessary to clarify that the competent Authority will consider every such, including the difference in the retirement age as has been impelled before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the High Court and the learned Government Pleader.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE saap