Kerala High Court
Dr.R.V.Varma vs The State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) No.16425/2022 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Wednesday, the 25th day of September 2024 / 3rd Aswina, 1946
WP(C).NO. 16425 OF 2022(C)
PETITIONERS:
1. DR.R.V.VARMA AGED 74 YEARS S/O. LATE L.C.R. VARMA, RESIDING AT
LAKSHMIPURAM ROYAL AVENUE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680020,
(FORMER CHIEF SCIENCE, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
PEECHI).
AND OTHERS.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
AND OTHERS.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the
High Court be pleased to issue an interim direction to the 1st
respondent to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to all persons who had
retired from the Kerala Forest Research Institute, since its inception
in November, 2003 and sanction and disburse pension to them
irrespective of their date of retirement, at least with prospective
effect, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil).
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the
petition and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's
order dated 16-08-2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S T.C.SURESH
MENON & B.DEEPAK, Advocates for the petitioners, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
R1 and of SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, Advocate for R2 & R3, the court passed
the following:
WP(C) No.16425/2022 2/7
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
========================
W.P.(C) No.16425 of 2022
==================
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The petitioners retired from the service of the
Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) prior to
01.03.2011. By Ext.P8, while considering the
entitlement of pension in respect of persons who
retired from service of the 2nd respondent between
01.03.2011 to 31.03.2015, it was stated by the 1 st
respondent that the Government is yet to decide on
the aspect of pension in respect of persons who had
retired from the service of the 2 nd respondent prior
to 01.03.2011. Challenging Ext.P8, the petitioners
have approached this Court, by filing W.P.(C)
No.26983 of 2019, to the extent it deferred
consideration of payment of pension to persons
who retired from the service of KFRI prior to
01.03.2011, and also for a direction to the
respondents to the extend the benefit of Ext.P2 as
modified by Ext.P6 to persons who retired from
the service prior to 01.03.2011. This Court, by
Ext.P9 judgment, disposed of the said writ
petition. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
"5. Having heard the learned
Government Pleader also, I am of
the opinion that this is a matter
for the Government to take an
appropriate decision, taking note
of the contentions raised by the
petitioners that they are also
similarly placed and are liable for
a consideration of the payment of
pension under the pension
scheme, taking note of the long
years of service put in by them.
6. There will, accordingly, be
a direction that in case the
petitioners approach the
Government with an appropriate
representation, the issue of grant
of pension to persons who retired
before 01.03.2011 shall also be
considered by the Government
sympathetically. Appropriate
orders shall be passed, after
hearing representatives of the
petitioners also, within a period of
three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this
judgment."
2. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the
petitioners submitted Ext.P10 representation
before the 1st respondent. However, Ext.P10
representation was rejected by Ext.P11, wherein
it is stated that the claim of the petitioners for
pension cannot be considered in view of the
present financial condition of the Government and
that if the claim of the petitioners is allowed,
similar claim would come from employees of other
institutions.
3. On going through Ext.P11, I find that, the
1st respondent has not considered the eligibility of
the petitioners for payment of pension as directed
in Ext.P9 judgment on merits.
4. Accordingly, I am of the view that Ext.P11
order requires a re-visit by the 1 st respondent in
terms of the directions in Ext.P9 judgment. The 1 st
respondent shall consider the issuance of grant of
pension to persons who retired before
01.03.2011. Fresh orders in this regard shall be
passed within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order with notice
to the petitioners.
Post on 07.11.2024.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
25-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16425/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS) NO. 01/2014/S & TD
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DATED 1.2.2014.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS) NO. 03/2017/S & TD
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 07.06.2017.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3/99/2018/S& TD PASSED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 30.10.2018.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 26893/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 14.12.2020.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER ALONG WITH DR. K.C. CHACKO BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PETITIONERS, DATED
28.12.2020.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO. 57/2021/S & TD
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 29.11.2021.
25-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
