The Kerala government’s policy of granting lifelong pension to the personal staff of a minister even if they have served for just two years is mystifying, the Supreme Court said on Monday.
A bench of justices SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari flagged its concerns about Kerala being the only state that has such a pension scheme.
“At least 20 persons are appointed for ministers for only two years and then they get pension for full life… Please, tell us why?” the bench asked senior advocate V Giri, who was appearing for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
The transport corporation challenged the higher fuel prices by state-owned oil companies, complaining it would affect the cost of public transport. The bench declined to entertain the petition even as it referred to the state government’s pension policy for personal staff of state ministers.
“If the state is so rich that it can appoint people for just two years and then go on to pay them pension, the state can pay for the fuel too,” the judges told Giri.
The bench further asked Giri to convey the views of the top court to state government functionaries. “It is the only state doing this…Please, convey our words to the state government.”
Giri assured the bench that he would pass on the message to the state government, adding that the court’s message would reach the government even otherwise since the media would flash the judge’s comments in the next five minutes.
With the court’s indisposition to entertain the corporation’s plea, Giri opted to withdraw the transport utility’s petition with a liberty to approach the high court for appropriate relief.
Pension for personal staff of ministers in Kerala was introduced by the United Democratic Front government in 1994 with retrospective effect from 1982. Each minister in the state is eligible for 25 members as personal staff. Government employees have to put in a minimum of 10 years of service to avail pension.
At least 980 former personal staff of ministers are getting pension and other benefits from the government. Around ₹8 crore is drawn from the state exchequer towards this. At least five times this amount is incurred every year as salary and expenses of personal staff who are currently on the roll, the government records show.
For the past many decades, both Congress led UDF and the Left Democratic Front have been unabashedly resorting to this. The LDF resorted to a new policy of changing staff after every two-and-a-half years so that both the former and fresh staff will get pension and other emoluments.
Kerala governor Arif Mohammad Khan had flagged this issue last month and sought a report from the state government.
“I can’t be a party to this loot. How can the state fund political activists like this? I was told some ministers have 20-25 personal staff and they will be shifted after two years so as to engage a fresh batch and both will enjoy all privileges. This is illegal and unconstitutional,” he said, adding he consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General about this “strange arrangement.”
This was happening at time when thousands of job aspirants who cleared the public service commission examinations were out on the street protesting delay in their appointment, the governor said.
The Supreme Court’s remarks on Kerala’s pension policy came amid a controversy over appointment of party cadre as personal staff to ministers and making them eligible for pension after just two years in service.
Last month, governor Khan spoke out against this policy, as a “gross violation and abuse of authority” and “misuse and abuse of money of people of Kerala”.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), however, hit back saying the policy has been in place since 1984 and will not be stopped just because Khan was against it. On February 21, the party’s state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said these things are decided by the state government and not the governor.
Meanwhile, in its petition before the top court, KSRTC urged the top court to appoint an independent authority with a former judge at its helm under the mandate of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act of 2006.
It contended that the hike in fuel prices is unfair considering the fact that in other countries public transport vehicles enjoyed reduced fuel prices. The petition said the corporation’s service is an essential service under the law and that the hike in prices would threaten the continued existence of the corporation.
