IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16132 of 2004(U)
1. C.C.YACOB, S/O.CHANDY, AGED 61 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/11/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 16132 of 2004-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service as L.P.S.A. He is aggrieved by the
denial of salary for the period from 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner
was superannuated from service on 31.10.1998, but he was entitled for
continuance in service upto 31.3.1999 in terms of Rule 60(c) of Part I
K.S.R. This period is liable to be counted for all service benefits including
pay revision benefits.
3. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and the same
was the subject matter of challenge in O.P. No.364/1998. Ext.P1 is the
copy of the judgment rendered therein. Ext.P2 is the judgment wherein
this Court directed the respondents to consider the grievance raised by the
petitioner in the representation. By Ext.P3, a correction was entered in the
remark column of the statement of fixation of pay by substituting the date
31.3.1999 as 31.10.1998. The petitioner made a representation as Ext.P4
against the same which was directed to be disposed of by this Court as per
Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational
wpc 16132/2004 2
Officer in the matter. This is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The stand taken in Ext.P6 is that in the judgment in O.P.
No.364/1998, it is declared that he will be deemed to be in service upto the
date of superannuation. Hence, the salary from 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999
cannot be disbursed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the right
conferred under Rule 60(c) of Part I K.S.R. cannot be denied to the
petitioner. According to the said provision, the teaching staff of all
educational institutions who completed the age of 55 years during the
course of an academic year shall continue in service till the last day of the
month in which the academic year ends. Therefore, the petitioner was
entitled for continuance upto 31.3.1999 and consequential benefits ought to
have been sanctioned.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the
stand taken is that the petitioner is eligible for pay and allowances only upto
31.10.1998, the date of superannuation as per the judgment dated 14.3.2002
in O.P. No.364/1998.
7. Therefore, the question turns upon the findings rendered in Ext.P1
judgment itself. In the said writ petition, the validity of the disciplinary
action taken against the petitioner was challenged. On the conclusion of
the disciplinary enquiry, a punishment of compulsory retirement was
proposed against him. Ultimately, the Manager imposed a punishment of
wpc 16132/2004 3
compulsory retirement from service with effect from 31.7.1996 by Ext.P9
order produced in the said writ petition.
8. This Court found that the enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-
A K.E.R. was not held and no report was obtained. Previous sanction of the
District Educational Officer was also not obtained. In that view of the
matter, it was held that the action taken against the petitioner is in gross
violation of the rules governing the same. It was declared that the
impugned orders are ultra vires and therefore void. The operative portion of
the judgment contained in para 7 reads as follows:
“The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
The petitioner has reached the age of superannuation during the
pendency of the Original Petition. So, he will be deemed to be in
service till the date of superannuation. After retirement, no action to
impose any punishment as contemplated under Rule 65 can be
imposed on him.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the finding
that the petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits which will
include the right for continuance in service in terms of Rule 60(c) and the
monetary benefits flowing therefrom including the benefits of pay revision.
This Court did not obviously allow the benefits of continuance upto the end
of the academic year, namely, 31st of March of the year in which the
petitioner superannuated from service. This Court declared that he will be
deemed to be in service till the date of superannuation. The date of
wpc 16132/2004 4
superannuation admittedly is 31.10.1998. The judgment itself is dated
14.3.2002, long after the date of superannuation and the end of the academic
year. The petitioner never sought for a direction by this Court in the said
writ petition, to treat the petitioner as retired from service on 31.3.1999.
The said judgment has become final also. Therefore, it cannot be said that
for the purpose of getting consequential benefits, he should be deemed to
have been continued in service upto the end of March of next year, viz.
31.3.1999.
10. The right of the petitioner for continuance under Rule 60(c) of
Part I K.S.R. has not been declared by this Court in Ext.P1. The petitioner,
at this stage, cannot contend for the position that he should be deemed to
have been continued upto 31st March of the year 1999. Therefore, I find no
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The writ
petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/