IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 750 of 2010()
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY76
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCAITON,
3. THE DISTRICT TRESURY OFFICER,KOZHIKODE.
Vs
1. S.RAJAMONY,S/O.P.SINGARAYAN NADAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :26/05/2010
O R D E R
C.R.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
....................................................................
Writ Appeal No.750 of 2010 &
W.P.(C) No.9466 of 2010
....................................................................
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The petitioner in the W.P.(C) who is the respondent in the Writ
Appeal is a member of teaching staff of the Physical Education College
under the Calicut University at Kozhikode. He was born on 2.5.1954
and since 55 is the age of superannuation, he would have retired on
31.5.2009. However, according to the petitioner, under Rule 60(c) of
Part I, K.S.R. read with Ext.P3 Government Order the petitioner is
entitled to continue till the end of the academic year beyond 31.3.2010.
The contention of the Government Pleader is that based on amendment
to Rule 60(c) the petitioner is entitled to continue upto 31.3.2010.
However, the contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of Ext.P3,
the benefit of Rule 60(c) will be such that he can continue upto 31st
July, 2010 which is the end of the academic year.
2. In the first place, Government Pleader contended that academic
W.A.750&9466/2010 2
year as defined under the University statute is from 1st June to 31st
March of the year and so much so, the petitioner is bound to retire on
31st March, 2010. We are unable to accept the contention of the
petitioner that first he should be given the benefit of extension under
Ext.P3 Government Order to 31st March, 2010 and thereafter to further
extend his service upto 31st July, 2010. Even if the petitioner’s case
that academic year for Physical Education course actually closes on
31st July, 2010 is true, then petitioner’s retirement by virtue of Rule 60
(c) would have been on 31st July, 2009 and only by virtue of the
amendment introduced to Rule 60(c) he gets an extension upto 31st
March, 2010. In other words, the unification of the date of retirement
achieved through Ext.P3 order is already incorporated for teaching staff
of colleges by amendment to Rule 60(c). Even going by petitioner’s
contention that the academic year ends for his institution on 31st July,
2009, he would have retired under the unamended provisions of Rule
60(c) on 31st July, 2009 and after the amendment, his retirement will
be on 31st March, 2010. Ext.P3 issued by the Government making
uniform retirement date in the State on 31st March of the year
W.A.750&9466/2010 3
coincides with Rule 60(c) after it’s amendment. We, therefore, do not
find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to
continue beyond 31st March, 2010. Consequently Writ Appeal filed
against interim order permitting the petitioner to continue is allowed
and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However we make it clear that
whatever is the work done by the petitioner after 31st March, 2010,
does not get invalidated on account of this judgment. However,
dispensing with the delay in submitting pension papers, petitioner
should be given his terminal benefits and pension also should be
sanctioned without any delay.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
P.S.GOPINATHAN
Judge
pms