LexTHE STATE OF KERALA versus M. VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 119 : 2026 INSC 352 The State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 4347-4348 of 2026) 10 April 2026 [Manoj Misra* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration If Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) are to be added on salary and pension payable to serving employees and retired employees, respectively, whether there could be a higher rate for enhancement of DA than what it is for DR. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.14 – Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief – Retired employees of KSRTC filed a writ petition questioning the lower rate fixed for enhancement of DR on pension than what was fixed for enhancement of DA on salary – Their grievance was that the serving employees got enhancement of DA by 14 per cent whereas the pensioners’ DR was enhanced by 11 per cent – They claimed violation of Art.14 of the Constitution – The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions – However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that benefit extended was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – Whether the High Court was justified in holding the same to be discriminatory and violative of Art.14: Held: The object and purpose of dearness allowance/dearness relief is to mitigate the hardship faced by salaried employees/pensioners on account of inflation – The Government Order in question increases the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase is to serve a common object, which is to mitigate the hardship faced by the serving employees and pensioners on account of inflation – Indisputably, inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force, therefore, differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved – Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding the same to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14. [Paras 25, 26] * Author 120 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Constitution of India – Art.14 – Test of reasonable classification – Burden of proof: Held: Art.14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification which must satisfy twin tests: (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that differentia must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act – The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the two – Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved – The burden of proof lies on the State to affirmatively establish that these twin tests have been satisfied – The State must therefore not only establish the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlate it to the objects sought to be achieved. [Para 22] Constitution of India – Art.14 – Concept of Equality – Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness – Discussed. [Para 22] Case Law Cited Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others [1981] 2 SCR 79 : (1981) 1 SCC 722; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. [2024] 8 SCR 1321 : (2025) 1 SCC 1 – relied on. Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2013] 4 SCR 883 : (2013) 2 SCC 772; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] 1 SCR 284 : (1952) 1 SCC 1; Budhan Choudhary & Others v. State of Bihar [1955] 1 SCR 1045 : (1954) 2 SCC 791; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another [1974] 2 SCR 348 : (1974) 4 SCC 3 – referred to. The Managing Director of KSRTC v. M. Venugopalan Nair, W.A. No.176/2014; : M. Venugopalan Nair vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC, Writ Petition (C) No. 13798/2012 – referred to. T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy & Ors. [1999] 2 SCR 221 : (1999) 3 SCC 414; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal [2026] 5 S.C.R. 121 The State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors. and Ors. [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 549 : (2005) 6 SCC 754; State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Ors. [1997] 1 SCR 121 : (1997) 2 SCC 342; Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese and Ors. [2007] 8 SCR 164 : (2007) 8 SCC 231; Himachal Roa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.