Kerala High Court
P.K.Chathu vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 3 December, 2008
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
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.