Sign in Subscribe
Service Law

State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar 2026 INSC 352 - Service - DA and DR

CaseCiter

• 3 min read
Share

Service Law - 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? SC held: Once pension is admissible and, based on inflation, DR is admissible on it, announcing DR at a rate lower than at what DA is provided, when both are linked to inflation and serve a common object, would be nothing but discriminatory as well as arbitrary. A financial crunch might be a guiding factor to defer disbursement of certain benefits or may justify separate dates for implementation of beneficial schemes. But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances as also to increase them, based on inflation, fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary. (Para 26-28)

State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar 2026 INSC 352 - Service - DA and DR
State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar 2026 INSC 352 - Service - DA and DR.pdf
592 KB
download-circle

Case Info

Basic Case Details


Case name: State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors. (with connected appeal: State of Kerala & KSRTC v. M. Vijayakumar & Ors.)Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 352Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate JurisdictionCoram:

  • Justice Manoj Misra
  • Justice Prasanna B. VaraleJudgment date: 10 April 2026Appeals from: Common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 22.11.2022 in W.A. Nos. 131 & 202 of 2022 (arising from W.P.(C) Nos. 12062/2021 and 6411/2021)Parties:
  • Appellants: State of Kerala (and, in connected appeal, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation – KSRTC)
  • Respondents: M. Vijayakumar & Others (retired employees of KSRTC)

Statutes / Constitutional Provisions Referred

  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India (equality before law and equal protection of laws)
  • Article 16 (referenced conceptually via Royappa – equality in public employment)
  • (Mention of “Article 145” in the facts portion is clearly a typographical error in the High Court’s description; the controversy is squarely under Article 14.)

Case Law / Precedents Cited


By the appellants (State of Kerala and KSRTC):

  1. T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 414
  2. State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754
  3. State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 342
  4. Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 231
  5. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union, (2021) 4 SCC 502

By the respondents (retired employees):

  1. Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 2 SCC 772
  2. Kerala High Court, W.P.(C) No. 13798/2012, M. Venugopalan Nair v. Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC, judgment dated 03.07.2013
  3. Kerala High Court, W.A. No. 176/2014, The Managing Director of KSRTC v. M. Venugopalan Nair, judgment dated 09.02.2017

General Article 14 jurisprudence relied on in the reasoning:

  1. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 : 1952 SCC OnLine SC 1
  2. Bhudhan Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1954) 2 SCC 791 : 1954 SCC OnLine SC 19
  3. D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305
  4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 3
  5. Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722
  6. State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors., (2025) 1 SCC 1

Brief Three‑Sentence Summary


The Supreme Court considered whether the State of Kerala and KSRTC could validly grant a higher rate of dearness allowance (DA) to serving KSRTC employees (112%, +14%) while granting a lower rate of dearness relief (DR) to KSRTC pensioners (109%, +11%), when both DA and DR are meant to neutralise the same inflation. Holding that serving and retired employees may be distinct classes but that any classification must have a rational nexus with the object of the benefit, the Court found no justification for different rates of increase where the purpose and inflation index are identical, and therefore termed the differentiation arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The appeals filed by the State of Kerala and KSRTC were dismissed, and the High Court’s direction for parity in the rate of enhancement of DR with DA was upheld.