IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 358 of 2007(P)
1. S. JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, A & E,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/10/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
======================
W.P.(C).No.358 of 2007
=============-===========
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired as Selection Grade Lecturer in
Politics from a College under the N.S.S Corporate Management
on 31.03.1997. The Petitioner’s actual date of superannuation
was 30.11.1996. But he continued in service up to 31.03.1997
by virtue of Rule 60(c) of the Kerala Service Rules. Earlier an
issue arose as to whether the benefits of pay revision declared
with effect from 1.03.1997 could be extended to those teachers
who continued in service beyond 01.03.1997 by in tone of Rule
60(c) although their actual date of superannuation fell before
1.03.1997. This Court and Supreme Court upheld the right of
such teachers for pay revision benefits, increments etc. The
petitioner is seeking that benefit in this writ petition based on
the decision of this Court as well as that of the Supreme Court
upholding such rights. In the above circumstances the petitioner
seeks the following reliefs:
i) “to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order calling
for details relating to Ext.P11 and examine the legality,
W.P.(C).No.358/2007
2
propriety and constitutionality and quash the same.
ii)to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders granting enhanced
rate of commuted value of pension and DCRG at the revised
rate of pension with interest from the date that it had become
due;
iii)to declare that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced rate of
commuted value of pension and DCRG at the revised rate of
pension with interest after the date of his retirement on
31.3.1997.
iv)to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to release the pensionary
benefits with penal interest from the date of retirement to till
the date of its payment:”
The learned Government Pleader submits that by S.R.O
No.591/2006, Rule 60(c) was amended with retrospective effect
from 15.05.1986, laying down that persons continuing in service
by virtue of Rule 60(c) beyond their actual date of
superannuation would not be entitled to benefit of pay revision if
they attained age of superannuation before the date of effect of
pay revision. The Government Pleader submits that in view of
amendment with retrospective effect the petitioner is not
entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Since there is no challenge
against the said Government Order, I am satisfied that the
W.P.(C).No.358/2007
3
petitioner is not entitled the reliefs prayed for, accordingly the
writ petition is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs