IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22758 of 2006(H)
1. K.SIVADAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND
3. THE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 22758 OF 2006
====================
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The writ petitioner entered service of the second
respondent as Senior Technical Officer. According to him, as
per Ext.P4, the age of superannuation of the Scientific or
Technical Staff shall be 60 years and that of Administrative
Staff 58 years. On 16/1/03, the 2nd respondent was
amalgamated with Kerala State Council for Science
Technology and Environment, (hereinafter referred to as
Council for short). After amalgamation, on 19/6/03, the
Council framed its own rules and Ext.R3(b) is a copy of the
same. In terms of Ext.R3(b), an employee in
Administrative/Technical category shall retire from service
of the Council on the afternoon of the last day of the month
in which he/she attains 58 years of age and for scientific
staff, the retirement age is 60 years. On 12/8/03, the
WPC 22758/06
: 2 :
second respondent was detached from the Council.
Thereafter on 14/7/2004, it was re-registered as a Society
and started functioning as such. On such re-registration,
based on Ext.R3(c) resolution dated 8/9/05, the 2nd
respondent issued an order clarifying that those rules and
orders, which were in force at the time of re-registration on
14/7/04 shall continue in force until specifically ordered
otherwise.
2. While the position continued as above, the
petitioner applied for leave without allowance for four
months and the request of the petitioner was recommended
by the Director to Government for issuing necessary no
objection certificate as per Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, it is stated
that the age of superannuation of technical staff in the
second respondent is 60 years as per its Service Rules and
that the date of retirement of the petitioner in 31/8/08.
Ext.R3(d) produced in the counter is the reply to Ext.P2,
WPC 22758/06
: 3 :
wherein the Government has informed the second
respondent that as per the rules applicable to the second
respondent, the age of superannuation of scientific staff
shall be 60 years and that for the technical and
administrative staff, it shall be 58 years. Ext.R3(d) also says
that since the petitioner was working as a Senior Technical
Officer, his age of superannuation is 58 years and he will be
superannuated from service on 31/8/06 instead of 31/8/08
indicated in Ext.P2. Following Ext.R3(d), the 2nd respondent
issued Ext.P3 informing the petitioner that the age of
superannuation of the Technical and Administrative Staff is
58 years and that since he was working as Senior Technical
Officer, his age of superannuation is 58 years and
superannuation date is 31/8/06. Thus on receipt of Ext.P3,
the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P3
and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to
remain in service as Senior Technical Officer until he attains
WPC 22758/06
: 4 :
60 years of age.
3. At the stage of admission, this Court passed an
interim order, on the basis of which petitioner was allowed
to continue, but however, without receiving any monetary
benefits.
4. The thrust of the averments in the counter
affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is that, with the
amalgamation of the 2nd respondent in the Council on
16/1/2003, the rules that are applicable to the Council
became applicable to all the employees of the amalgamated
Council. According to the 2nd respondent, even after
detachment of the 2nd respondent from the Council w.e.f.
12/8/03, the rules of the Council continued to govern the
employees of the 2nd respondent even as on 14/7/2004,
when it was re-registered as a Society. It is stated that it
was on that basis that Ext.R3(c) resolution was passed
clarifying that the rules and orders which were in force at
WPC 22758/06
: 5 :
the time of re-registration of the 2nd respondent shall
continue in force until specifically ordered otherwise. On
this basis, it is contended that, the rule that is applicable is
Ext.R3(d), and that in terms of Clause 4 thereof, the age of
superannuation of Technical Officers is 58. It is on that
basis that the 2nd respondent seeks to justify Ext.P3.
5. From the nature of controversy that is raised by
the parties, the only issue that arises for consideration is, as
to which of the Rules, namely Ext.P4 or Ext.R3(b), is
applicable to the petitioner. As already noticed, Ext.P4
continued to apply to the 2nd respondent till it was
amalgamated with the Council on 16/1/03. Although the 2nd
respondent was detached from the Council on 12/8/03 and
was re-registered as a Society on 14/7/04, it is the case of
the 2nd respondent that Ext.R3(b) rules of the Council
continued to govern the employees of the 2nd respondent. It
is on that presumption that they passed Ext.R3(c) resolution
WPC 22758/06
: 6 :
on 8/9/05 clarifying that the rules as applicable on 14/7/04
will continue to govern the employees of the 2nd respondent.
From the above, it is quite clear that the rule that prevailed
on 14/7/04 is Ext.R3(b) and that was followed by the
Council. Ext.R3(b) provides that Technical Officers is to
retire at 58 years. If that be so, the petitioner being a
Senior Technical Officer is bound to retire at 58 years. Once
it is held that 58 years is the age of superannuation of
Technical Officers, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in
Ext.P3 cannot be vitiated for, on any ground. If that be so,
Ext.P3 is valid and cannot be set aside.
6. The result of the discussion is that the petitioner is
bound to retire at the age of 58 and the stand taken by the
2nd respondent in Ext.P3 is correct. Thus there is no merit in
the contentions raised in the writ petition and it is only to be
dismissed and I do so.
However, the fact remains that the petitioner has
WPC 22758/06
: 7 :
worked for the period subsequent to 31/8/06 under orders
of this Court. The fruits of his labour having been extracted
by the 2nd respondent, it is only fair that he is paid salary as
applicable to him. This the 2nd respondent shall do, within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp