Lower DR Than DA Is Arbitrary – Violates Article 14 | SC

Case Details: State of Kerala vs. M. Vijayakumar [2026] 185 taxmann.com 444 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manoj Misra & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
• Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., C. K. Sasi, Deepak Prakash, Aors, Ms Meena K Poulose, Riddhi Bose, Ms Racheeta Chawla, Ms Sampriti Bakshi, Siddharth Banerjee, Sriram P., Ms Jyoti Pandey, Ms Divyangna Malik, Rahul Suresh, Ms Shivangi Rajawat, Rahul Rajeev, Ms Manshi Sinha, Ms Ridhika Singh, Sankalp Tewari, Daksh Rathi, Ms Snehil Singh, Advs. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv., Vipin Nair, Aor, Aditya Narendranath, P B Sashaankh, Haresh Nair, Ms M.B. Ramya, Ms Deeksha Gupta & Ms Puspita Basak, Advs. for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondents were retired employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) who filed writ petitions challenging a Government Order. Under the said Order, to address inflationary pressures, Dearness Allowance (DA) payable to serving KSRTC employees was enhanced to 112% (an increase of 14%), while Dearness Relief (DR) payable to pensioners was enhanced to 109% (an increase of 11%) with effect from March 2021.

The grievance of the Respondents was that DR, like DA, is linked to inflation and serves the same purpose; therefore, it ought not to be enhanced at a lower rate. They contended that such differential treatment violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding that serving employees and pensioners do not constitute a single class and that prescribing different rates of enhancement was permissible.

However, the Division Bench set aside this decision, holding that granting a lower rate of enhancement of DR (109%) as compared to DA (112%) was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that since both DA and DR are linked to inflation and share a common objective, prescribing a lower rate of enhancement for DR payable to pensioners than DA payable to serving employees is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench and held that such differential treatment violates Article 14.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos. 131 and 202 of 2022, Dated 22-11-2022 (para 26) affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• M. Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [W.P. (C) Nos. 6411 & 12062 of 2021, dated 14-12-2021] (para 1)
• Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union [2021] 2 taxmann.com 2141 (SC) (para 13)
• T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy (1999) 3 SCC 414 (para 13)
• State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal 2005 taxmann.com 2143 (SC) (para 13)
• State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi (1997) 2 SCC 342 (para 13)
• Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC v. K. O. Varghese (2007) 8 SCC 231 (para 13)
• Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu [2013] 1 taxmann.com 8455 (SC) (para 16)
• M. Venugopalan Nair v. Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC [Writ Petition (C) No. 13798 of 2012, dated 3-7-2013] (para 16)
• Managing Director of KSRTC v. M. Venugopalan Nair [W.A. No. 176 of 2014, dated 9-2-2017] (para 16)
• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1 (para 22)
• Bhudhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1954) 2 SCC 791 (para 22)
• D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 (para 22)
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 (para 22)
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 (para 23)
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2025) 1 SCC 1 (para 24).