[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sunimol P.K vs State Of Kerala Represented By Chief ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:16647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37160 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
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 ASHOK SHARMA,R.
AGED 34 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
5 SYAMPRASAD T.A
AGED 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2026:KER:16647
W.P.(C) No.37160/2023
:2:
6 VINEETH KRISHNAN V
AGED 36 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
7 KIRAN M.J
AGED 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
8 PREETHA V.NAIR
AGED 47 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
9 DIPIN THILAKAN
AGED 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
10 AMBILY S
AGED 36 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
11 HARI PRASAD C.M
AGED 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
12 JEFFIN DAVIS K
AGED 37 YEARS
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
2026:KER:16647
W.P.(C) No.37160/2023
:3:
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS K. NELLUVELY
SRI.REJI MATHEW.M
SRI.MATHEW VARGHESE
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.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SONY K.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.B.G.HARINDRANATH (SR.)
SRI.AMITH KRISHNAN H.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON 27.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16647
W.P.(C) No.37160/2023
:4:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.37160 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioners are Assistant Section
Officers / Senior Grade Assistants working under the High
Court of Kerala. They seek to declare that as they are
appointed on the basis of notification and rank list published
prior to the date of implementation of NPS, they are not
mandatorily to be included under the NPS regulated by
PFRDA Act, 2013 and that they are eligible to be covered by
Part III KSR as it existed on the date of Ext.P1 notification
and so entitled to Statutory Pension Scheme.
2026:KER:16647
2. The 4th respondent-High Court of Kerala
issued Ext.P1 notification dated 28.09.2011 inviting
application for appointment to the post of Assistants. The
petitioners applied for the post and qualified in the selection
process consisting of written test and interview. They joined
in service as Assistants on various dates between
22.05.2013 and 03.08.2015.
3. The employees under the High Court of
Kerala were governed by the Kerala Service Rules (KSR)
Part III Pension Scheme till 31.03.2013. The Government of
Kerala issued Ext.P3 Government Order dated 07.01.2013
introducing National Pension Scheme (NPS) to the State
Government employees whereunder NPS was made
mandatory for all appointments made on or after 01.04.2013.
Therefore, the petitioners who joined High Court service on
and after 22.05.2013 were included in the NPS in spite of the
fact that they were included in Ext.P2 rank list dated
08.08.2012, which is prior to 01.04.2013.
2026:KER:16647
4. The petitioners state that the NPS
introduced by the Government of Kerala is a replica of the
NPS introduced by the Government of India as per Ext.P4
notification dated 22.12.2013. The 2nd respondent has
admitted the fact that the Rules and Regulations for the
management of NPS implemented in the State will be
governed by the directions/rules/circulars/orders etc. issued
by the Government of India from time to time. This is evident
from Ext.P5.
5. The petitioners submit that according to the
Government of India, the new NPS system is mandatory for
all "new recruits" to the Central Government service after the
implementation date. But, the Government of Kerala, instead
of following the same criteria applicable to "all new recruits",
made NPS applicable to "all appointments" made after the
implementation date. The Government of Kerala departed
from the NPS designed by the Government of India under
PFRDA Act. The petitioners argue that the action of the 2nd
2026:KER:16647
respondent in changing the target subscribers of NPS is a
violation of the admission made by respondents in Ext.P5
and is against the legislative intention behind the PFRDA Act.
6. The petitioners urge that the State
Government can extend NPS to its employees through a
notification as stipulated in Section 12(4) of the PFRDA Act,
but they are not empowered to make any variation to the
substantive provisions.
7. It is further submitted that Ext.P3 is not a
notification contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act and
therefore the mandatory implementation of the NPS and
deductions from the salary and Dearness Allowance of the
petitioners who were newly recruited before 04.06.2020,
before the date of Ext.P6 notification, is illegal and liable to be
quashed.
8. It is pointed out that based on the spirit of
the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Inspector
Rajendra Singh and others v. Union of India and others
2026:KER:16647
[2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879], the Government of India
issued Ext.P7 Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023
granting a one time option to the employees who were
appointed in vacancies against notifications issued prior to
the implementation date of NPS to exercise option to the
statutory scheme.
9. The petitioners submit that Ext.P7
memorandum is a clarification on the implementation policy
of the NPS issued by the Central Government on the basis of
the law laid down by the Apex Court. Ext.P7 indicates the
policy and intention of the Central Government which is the
authority competent to make policy decisions under the
PFRDA Act, in view of Section 43 of the PFRDA Act. The
petitioners are fully entitled to be governed by the Statutory
Pension Scheme. Though the petitioners submitted Ext.P8
representation dated 14.07.2023 to the 3rd respondent, their
grievance has not been addressed to. Hence, the petitioners
are before this Court.
2026:KER:16647
10. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit
and resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that
in order to implement NPS in Kerala, the Government
executed various agreements with NSDL and NPS Trust,
which are two Central Government Agencies. In the
agreements and executive orders issued by the Government,
it was clearly specified that NPS is applicable to those who
are appointed on or after 01.04.2013. Since the appointment
of the petitioners is after 01.04.2013, they came under the
purview of NPS.
11. The Government has adopted a contributory
pension scheme with a view to achieve fiscal consolidation in
the State. NPS was adopted on the basis of a decision of the
Government. The Government had announced
implementation of NPS as early in 2002 and therefore the
petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they were not
aware of the intention of the Government to implement a
Contributory Pension Scheme instead of Statutory Pension
2026:KER:16647
Scheme. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and
it is only to be dismissed, contended the 2nd respondent.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Counsel assisted
by the Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
13. The recruitment notification pursuant to
which the petitioners were selected and appointed in the
service under the High Court of Kerala, was published on
28.09.2011. After the selection process, they were included
in Ext.P2 rank list dated 08.08.2012 which was published
prior to 01.04.2013. The petitioners joined service on various
dates on and from 22.05.2013.
14. The State Government introduced NPS as
per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 07.01.2013 which was
made applicable for all appointments made on or after
01.04.2013. As the petitioners were admittedly appointed
after 01.04.2013, they were inducted into the NPS. The
2026:KER:16647
argument of the petitioners is that the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Inspector Rajendra Singh (supra) held that basic
terms and and conditions of service, such as the right to
receive pension after superannuation, as applicable at the
time of notification of the posts cannot be later be altered to
the prejudice of the incumbents of the posts, after
commencement of the selection process.
15. Thereafter, the Government of India issued
Ext.P7 Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 giving a one
time option to all cases where the Central Government civil
employee who have been appointed against a post or
vacancy which was advertised/notified for
recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for
NPS i.e., 22.12.2003. According to the petitioners, this option
made all employees whose recruitment process began prior
to the introduction of NPS, to remain in Statutory Pension
Scheme. The petitioners also are eligible for the same.
2026:KER:16647
16. The NPS has been framed in exercise of the
powers conferred under the Pension Fund Regulatory and
Development Authority Act, 2013 (PFRDA Act, for short).
Section 12 of the PFRDA Act provides that any State
Government or Administrator of a Union Territory may, by
notification, extend the National Pension system to its
employees.
17. Section 43 of the PFRDA Act provides that
the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority
shall, in exercise of its powers or the performance of its
functions, be bound by such directions on questions of policy,
other than those relating to technical and administrative
matters, as the Central Government may give, in writing to it,
from time to time.
18. Based on Section 12(4) and Section 43, the
petitioners would urge that as the Central Government is the
authority which is competent to give directions on questions
of policy to the authority under the PFRDA Act, the
2026:KER:16647
Government of Kerala should be bound by and follow such
policy decisions taken by the Central Government. Since the
Central Government has given option to its employees for
choosing either Statutory Pension or NPS to a group of
employees, the State Government should also extend such
option to similarly placed groups of employees working under
the Government of Kerala.
19. The Government of India had to give option
to its employees because while implementing NPS, it was
made applicable to "all new recruits". The Central
Government therefore found it fit not to force the employees
whose recruitment process began prior to the introduction of
NPS, to join the NPS.
20. In the case of Government of Kerala, the
NPS was made applicable to "all appointments made after
the implementation date of NPS". The notification of the
Government of Kerala was clear and unambiguous. The
States have a right to decide as to who are the employees
2026:KER:16647
who should be brought under the NPS. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they and similarly
situated employees should also be given option. The
reliance placed by the petitioners on Ext.P9 judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay would therefore
be of no assistance to the petitioners.
21. As the Government issued Ext.P3
Government Order introducing NPS, the petitioners will be
governed by the same. The submission of an application
pursuant to PSC notification or inclusion of the petitioners in a
select list would not give rise to any right to the petitioners to
be retained in the Statutory Pension Scheme. Mere inclusion
of a candidate in a select list would not guarantee that the
candidate would get appointment.
22. The right of the petitioners as employees
would arise only when they are appointed in the service. The
petitioners were appointed in service subsequent to
01.04.2013 on which date NPS came into effect. The
2026:KER:16647
petitioners therefore cannot aspire to get the benefits of an
earlier pension scheme.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is
hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/24.02.2026
2026:KER:16647
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 37160 OF 2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A2-
11446/2010/REC3 DATED 28.09.2011 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE RANK LIST
BEARING NO.A2-11446/2010/REC3 DATED
08-08-2012 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 20/2013/FIN
DT.07.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE GOI NOTIFICATION
F.NO.5/7/2003-ECB &PR DATED 22.12.2003
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN THE
WEBSITE'HTTPS://PRISM.KERALA.GOV.IN/NPS
.JSP' REGARDING NPS(NO DATE)
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF G.O(P) NO. 58/2020/FIN. DT.
13.05.2020 NOTIFIED IN THE KERALA
GAZETTE DATED 04-06-2020
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S
OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.57/05/2021-P&PW
(B) DT.03.03.2023
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14-07-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN WP NO. 2270 OF
2021, PRONOUNCED ON 28TH APRIL 2023
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
O.P(KAT).NO.336/2023 DATED 05-09-2023
Exhibit R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(P).NO.110/2023/FIN DATED 02-11-2023
