Sajan Jose K vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6069 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 17697 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          SAJAN JOSE K., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O T. K. JOSEPH,
          ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR [RETD.], DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,
          ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, RESIDING AT
          THEKKEDATH HOUSE, KANJAR, IDUKKI - 685590.

          BY ADVS.
          S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
          M.H.ASIF ALI


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
          GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    2     DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
          6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN VIKASBHAVAN P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

    3     DEPUTY DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
          VAYASKARAKUNNU, PALACE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686001.

    4     THE PRINCIPAL, ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM,
          THODUPUZHA - MOOLAMATTOM ROAD, ARAKULAM,
          IDUKKI - 685591.

    5     THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
          OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.


          SMT RESMI THOMAS GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 17697/22
                                      2

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns the revising and re-fixing of his

pensionary benefits and says that, on account of an altered

formula adopted, he stands on a lesser scale than the persons

who are similarly placed, which scale he was drawing prior to

such revision. He asserts that fixing of a cut-off date, so as to

cause an anomaly in pension, thus reducing it to a scale below

the persons who are identically situated, is an affront to the

principles of equity and therefore, liable to be interfered.

2. Sri.S.Muhammed Haneef - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the Government, through certain

executive orders - which have been produced on record as

Exts.P2 to P4, had ordered to revise the Pension/Family Pension

of those who come under the University Grants Commission

(UGC) Scheme and that this has now resulted in a situation

where different scales of pension are attracted to those who

retired on or after 01.06.2016. He argued that this classification

is unreasonable and pointed out the case of a certain Sri.Joseph WPC 17697/22

Justin, who is similarly situated as his client, but drawing a

higher pension on account of the afore inequity. He thus prayed

that this Court declare that the classification brought through

Exts.P2 to P4 are illegal and unlawful and that his client is

entitled to be granted a higher scale of pension by stepping-it up

to be on par with which is drawn by the aforementioned

Sri.Joseph Justin and thus to allow the reliefs sought for in this

Writ Petition.

3. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the

petitioner on the afore lines, the fact remains that the petitioner

has not yet approached the Government with any grievance or

request that his pension be 'stepped-up', as has been prayed for

in this Writ Petition. It is a fundamental principle that the

petitioner can seek a judicial review only when his request is

turned down by the Executive Authority. In the case at hand,

the petitioner, admittedly, has not yet approached the

Government and therefore, this Court is not in a position to

forensically assess why Exts.P2 to P4 Government Orders were

issued.

WPC 17697/22

4. I am, therefore, of the firm view that petitioner must

first approach the Government through an appropriate

representation, so that his requests can then be effectively

considered; and if it is answered in his favour, he would have

no grievance to be impelled before this Court.

In the afore perspective, I order this Writ Petition to the

limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to move an

appropriate representation before the competent Authority of the

1st respondent - State of Kerala within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and if this

is done, said Authority will consider it, after affording him an

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible

but not later than two months thereafter.

Sd/-

RR                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                 JUDGE
 WPC 17697/22


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17697/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                    THE PARTICULARS OF SERVICE OF THE

PETITIONER OF BEARING PPO NO.111629735.

Exhibit P2          A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.
                    151/2020/FIN. DT. 05/11/2020.
Exhibit P3          A TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO. 157/2020/FIN
                    DT. 19.11.2020.
Exhibit P4          A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.38/2021/FIN
                    DT. 25/02/2021.
Exhibit P5          A TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT
                    DT. 04/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
                    RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6          A TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT
                    OF SHRI JOSEPH JUSTINE DT. 10/04/2018
                    ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7          A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                    PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF SHRI JOSEPH
                    JUSTINE.