No Pension Without Compliance: Kerala High Court Upholds Finality of Division Bench Ruling on Livestock Board Retirees

"Cabinet decision by itself does not create enforceable right unless expressed in name of Governor", Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by retired employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd., seeking government pension based on retrospective regularisation of their services. Justice N. Nagaresh held that in the absence of fulfilment of the mandatory condition of refunding the employer’s share of Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), the petitioners were not entitled to pension. The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of a prior Division Bench judgment that had conclusively ruled on the same issue.

“Issue stands concluded and cannot be reopened”: Division Bench judgment operates as res judicata

The primary claim of the petitioners hinged on Ext.P2, a Government Order dated 30.01.2001, which promised pension and gratuity on par with government employees to the petitioners—retired inseminators under the erstwhile Indo Swiss Project, later absorbed into the Kerala Livestock Development Board. However, this benefit was made expressly conditional on refunding the employer’s contribution to EPF, a requirement that remained unfulfilled despite decades of litigation.

Citing paragraphs 34 and 38 of the judgment, the Court held:

“In view of Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.418/2015, the issue involved is concluded and the petitioners are not entitled to government pension.”

The Division Bench, in its 2016 decision, had granted a limited opportunity—the employer’s contribution had to be refunded by the EPFO within one month, failing which the withdrawal of the pension order (Ext.P4) would stand. The EPFO did not refund the amount, and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, rendering the issue final and non-negotiable.

“Voluntary repayment by employees irrelevant”: Refund must come from EPFO, not petitioners

One of the central contentions of the petitioners was their willingness to personally refund the employer’s contribution to the Government. This was categorically rejected by the Court, which held that EPF contributions are statutory in nature and cannot be circumvented through private arrangements.

Relying on paragraphs 19 and 20, the Court noted:

“The scheme of refund envisaged under G.O.(Ms.) No.25/2001/AD contemplated refund of the employer’s contribution from the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and not by way of voluntary repayment from the employees.”

“The employer’s contribution under the EPF Act is a statutory payment to the credit of the EPFO and cannot be refunded directly by the employees to the Government.”

Therefore, the petitioners’ repeated offers to repay the amount were held to have no legal significance under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Cabinet noting ≠ Government action: No enforceable right without executive order under Article 166

The petitioners had also placed heavy reliance on Ext.P8, a Cabinet decision dated 23.07.2014, which supposedly decided to restore the pension scheme subject to refund of EPF contribution. However, the Court drew a firm line between Cabinet decisions and State action, holding that until such decisions are formally expressed in the name of the Governor, as per Article 166 of the Constitution, they carry no enforceable legal effect.

Quoting paragraphs 41 and 42, the Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court precedent in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395] and reiterated:

“Until such advice is accepted by the Governor, whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the State.”

“In this case, Ext.P8 decision of the Council of Ministers has not come out as an executive order under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.”

Thus, despite the Cabinet decision, its failure to culminate in a Government Order meant that it could not override the earlier concluded litigation or the specific conditions of Ext.P2.

No scope for relitigation: “Ext.P6 is binding; petitioners cannot seek a second bite”

Justice Nagaresh emphasized that the doctrine of finality in litigation bars the petitioners from attempting to reopen a matter already adjudicated. Since the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 418/2015 had explicitly provided conditional relief—which was never fulfilled—the current writ petition amounted to a collateral challenge to a binding precedent.

The Court observed:

“The direction given by the learned Single Judge for payment of government pension to the petitioners is unsustainable.”

“The Division Bench hence found that the Government had undertaken to pay government pension only on certain conditions, which admittedly had not been complied with even today.”

The petitioners’ argument that a Joint Secretary could not override a Cabinet decision was also dismissed, as the Cabinet decision never attained legal enforceability in the absence of compliance with constitutional form and procedure.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, reiterating that no pension can be granted without compliance with the mandatory conditions laid out in the original Government Order (Ext.P2) and subsequently reaffirmed by the Division Bench. Voluntary payment by employees, Cabinet notings, or recommendations from the Board could not substitute the statutory mechanism and executive formality required under Indian constitutional and administrative law.

“Since the condition of remitting employer’s contribution as directed by the Division Bench is not satisfied, the petitioners cannot rely on Ext.P2 any more. As Ext.P8 decision of the Council of Ministers has not resulted in an executive order, the petitioners cannot make any claim based on Ext.P8 either,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026