1. The petitioners in all these cases are retired employees of the KSRTC and their Associations. Their common grievance is that the pension payable to retired employees of KSRTC is not revised periodically, in tune with salary revisions. The writ petitions are hence heard and disposed of together.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 18688 of 2023, the petitioners have challenged Exhibit P5 order dated 16.5.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting the petitioners’ request for revision of pension in line with other Government employees and for reduction of the existing disparity, on the reason that such relief would impose an additional financial burden on the KSRTC and the State Government.

3. In W.P.(C) No.13572 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 6611 of 2024, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.2.2024, produced as Exhibits P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) No.13752 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.6611 of 2024 respectively, issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting the request for revision of pension on the reason that the KSRTC does not have the financial resources to meet the additional expenditure.

4. There are no serious disputes regarding the facts. The KSRTC was formed in 1965. On 27.03.1984, the Government accepted the request of the employees of KSRTC for payment of pension as per the Kerala Service Rules. The Government issued orders on 05.05.1984, directing payment of pension to the employees who retired on or after 1.4.1984. The petitioners claim that the KSRTC is bound by the above order to periodically revise the pension as in the case of the employees of the Government. On 22.5.2012, an agreement was entered into between the Management and the recognised trade Unions, which was approved by the Government as per order dated 27.11.2012. The validity of the agreement was till 28.2.2016. No fresh agreements were reached till 1.6.2021, on which day another agreement was entered into. However, the said agreement only addressed the question of revision of the pay, and the revision of the pension was left to be decided after joint consultation between the KSRTC and the Secretaries of the Government in the Departments of Finance, Co- operation, and Transport. A copy of the relevant pages of the draft agreement has been produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) 13752 of 2024. Clause XXII of the agreement deals with the payment of pension.

5. Aggrieved by the agreement, the pensioners submitted representations to the Government and approached this Hon’ble Court for relief. W.P.(C) Nos. 24566 of 2022, 23966 of 2022 and 15093 of 2017 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 5.8.2022, directing the Government to consider the recommendations of the KSRTC regarding the revision of pay and pension to the employees and retired employees, after necessary deliberations with all the stakeholders and take a final decision. A similar direction was issued in W.P.(C)No.36042 of 2022 filed by a similarly situated Association. Pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C)No. 36042 of 2022, the Government passed an order on 16.5.2023 rejecting the request on the grounds of the bad financial position of KSRTC. Similar orders were issued on 5.2.2024 on the representations filed by other petitioners. It is aggrieved by the rejection of the request for revision of pension that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

6. Along with W.P.(C) No.6611 of 2024, the petitioners have produced the order dated 8.7.2022 issued by the KSRTC, revising the pension payable to persons who retired after 1.1.2022, based on the revised pay. The petitioners seek similar treatment.

7. The petitioners contend that a pension is not a charity or burden but a legal obligation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 330]. They contend that they are entitled to be treated like Government pensioners, that the revision of pension cannot be denied on the grounds of financial constraints, and that the directions to consider the recommendations of the KSRTC and to hear the stakeholders have not been complied with.

8. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P. (c)No.18688 of 2023, which has been adopted in the other two writ petitions. It is stated that on the authorisation given by the Government to the KSRTC to pay pension under Part III of KSR, the KSRTC pension scheme came into force with effect from 01.04.1984. It is stated that pension disbursement is governed by the long-term settlement dated 22.05.2012 and that any decision on pension or its revision is taken only after consultation with employee unions. The difficulty expressed in the counter-affidavit for revision of pension is financial constraints. It is admitted that pursuant to the 2021 pay revision, KSRTC issued Order No.2115/GL8 (LR)/22/RTC dated 08.07.2022, temporarily fixing the pension of employees retiring on or after 01.01.2022 based on the revised pay scale under Memorandum No. PRC/002643/2022 dated 04.02.2022, and that though in the earlier pay revisions, pension was revised simultaneously, the pension of existing pensioners was not revised during the 2021 pay revision.

9. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(c) No. 18688 of 2023, contending that the writ petition is not maintainable, as no fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated. It is contended that the KSRTC pensioners do not have a legal right to receive a revised pension at par with Government servants. It is stated that the Government had only agreed to temporarily pay pensions until KSRTC becomes financially stable. Reliance is placed on the decision in Chairman & MD, KSRTC v. K.O. Varghese [(2007) 8 SCC 231], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the postponement of pay revision benefits due to KSRTC’s weak finances. The judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amarnath Goel & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 754], is relied on to submit that financial constraints are a legitimate basis for limiting or staging pension benefits. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Chander Sood [(2016) 10 SCC 77] to submit that the Court cannot interfere in such policy decisions.

10. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, contending that in view of the judgment in W.P. (C)No.3808 of 2014, the statutory pension to the KSRTC pensioners should be paid directly by the Government. It is reiterated that there has been no pension revision for the past 13 years.

11. I have heard the counsel on either side and have considered in detail the materials placed before the court. The short question that arises is whether the orders dated 16.5.2023 and 5.2.2024 issued by the Government, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, are legally justifiable. The contentions of the petitioners on facts are that neither were the stakeholders heard nor were the recommendations of the KSRTC considered. They also contend that the pension is not a bounty and they are entitled to similar treatment as the Government pensioners since they are also governed by the provisions of the KSR. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in the grant of the revised pension, based on the date of their retirement. The Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and that no fundamental rights of the petitioners are violated.

12. In All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur, [(2020) 14 SCC 625], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that creating two classes of pensioners based on the date of retirement cannot be legally justified. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below.

                  “8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes viz. one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a valid classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. 1stly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied.

                  8.1.    In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.

                  8.2.    As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision.”

                  The above legal position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex- Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 11 SCC 186]. Paragraphs 2 and 38 of the above judgment are extracted below.

                  “2. What is involved in this case, is the fixation of date for the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, when applied to the respondent Corporation. That framing a policy concerning fixation of pay for the salaries of its employees, the extent of its revision, and even the date of its implementation, are matters of undoubted exclusive executive decision-making powers. However, the manner of its implementation, the timing of applicability of a scheme, and its impact, especially where it results in exclusion of a certain section of public employees from the benefit, are subject-matters of scrutiny by the court, especially, when the complaint is of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is one such case.

 xxxxxxxx   xxxx

                  38. In the present case, too, there is no denial that the employees who retired prior to 29.3.2010 discharged the same duties as in the case of those who did thereafter. The quality and content of responsibilities assigned to them were the same. The respondents' decision not to grant arrears prior to 1-1-2006 cannot be found fault with; however, not to grant any revision to those who were not in service when the order implementing the pay revision was issued and confining it to those, in employment is clearly discriminatory. The rationale that granting such pay revision only to existing employees would be to enthuse them to recover NPA amounts payable to MSFC has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the pay revision, which is to benefit employees and protect them from the rise in the cost of living.”

                  The above two decisions answer the contention regarding maintainability. Since the petitioners complain of discrimination, resulting in exclusion of a section of the pensioners from the benefit of the revised pension, a writ petition is maintainable. The above decisions also laid down that there cannot be discrimination based on the date of retirement. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government orders Ext.P5 produced in W.P.(C)No.18688 of 2023, and Exts.P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) Nos 13572 of 2024 and 6611 of 2024 respectively, are not in accordance with law and are liable to be set aside.

13. I shall now consider the decisions cited by the counsel on either side. In Deokinandan (supra), relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the State, but is governed by the Rules and a Government servant coming within the rule is entitled to claim pension. In the cases at hand, there is no dispute regarding the entitlement to a pension. The issue relates to the payment of the revised pension. In Amar Nath Goyal (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the KSRTC, the issue was regarding the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of an increased quantum of DCRG. The said principle cannot be applied to the cases at hand. The question regarding the cut-off date for payment of revised pension is governed by the principles laid down in All Manipur Pensioners’ Association(supra) and Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. (supra). In K.O.Varghese (supra), the Apex Court was considering the implementation of the 5th pay commission to the employees of KSRTC, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the KSRTC had the power to decide to postpone the consideration of the grant of enhanced pensionary benefits, and the legal principles laid down cannot be applied here. The said case was not a case of discrimination between the pensioners. In Rajesh Chander Sood (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the action of the Government in withdrawing a pension scheme which was introduced, not in the capacity as an employer, but as a welfare measure to employees of Government-controlled bodies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot interfere in such policy matters. In the case at hand, there is already a pension scheme in place, and the question is regarding the selective implementation of the revision to a section of the pensioners. Hence, the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of these cases. In Society of Retired Forest Officers v. State of U.P. [2008 (3) KLT 788], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State and Central Governments and Corporations or public sector must ensure that pension is received in the 1st week of every month, and the revised DA and pay should be released within two months of the revision. The said decision cannot be treated as a hard and fast rule in all circumstances. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Etc. v. M. Rajagopalan Nair (Civil Appeal Nos. 3161-3165/2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions regarding the payment of pension arrears as per the 2021 revision, but the said order did not take in the payment of revised pension to persons like the petitioners herein. In Vijayakumar M. v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 937], a Division Bench of this Court considered the restriction of the benefit of DR to the KSRTC pensioners to 109% as against the enhanced DA of 112% paid to the employees and held that the same was discriminatory. It is submitted that the operation of the above-mentioned judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court need not go into the above aspect in these writ petitions.

14. In the light of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the petitioners are entitled to relief. Ext.P5 produced in W.P. (C)No.18688 of 2023, and Exts.P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) Nos.13572 of 2024 and 6611 of 2024 respectively are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the issue regarding the extension of the benefit of the revised pension to the pensioners who retired before 01.01.2022, in the light of the law laid down in All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur (2020) 14 SCC 625 and Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex- Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 11 SCC 186], the order dated 8.7.2022 issued by the KSRTC produced as Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.6611 of 2024, and the observations in this judgment, and pass orders after hearing the petitioners or their representatives and the KSRTC, at the earliest, at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.