STATE OF KERALA Vs. P V NEELAKANDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Point of controversy in all these appeals is whether teachers superannuating during a particular academic year but continuing in service by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (in short the KER) are entitled to the benefit of pay revision coming into effect during such extended period.

(3.) Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary as the basic feature in each of the appeals is that the concerned teachers were to retire on the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The said date in each case fell within academic year. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the KER they continued till the last date of the month in which the academic year ends. Undisputedly the academic year in each case came to end on 31st March of the concerned year. The age of retirement in each case is 55 years, but benefit of continuance in service is granted till the end of the academic year. In each case, the concerned teachers were to superannuate on attaining the age of 55 on various dates between July, 1996 and March, 1997 i.e. during the course of academic year 1996-97. Irrespective of their due date of superannuation, they were allowed to continue in service by virtue of Rule 62 of the Chapter XIV (A) of KER. They retired from service on 31-3-1997. The Government of Kerala (Finance Department) by G.O. No. 3000/98/Fin dated 25-11-1998 had issued orders on acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee 1997 that the existing scales of pay will be revised and the revised scales will come into force with effect from 1-3-1997. Writ petitions were filed by the concerned teachers claiming benefit of the pay revision and for fixation of pensionary benefits on the basis of the revised pay. The writ Petitions were allowed by several judgments passed by learned single Judges. The State preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench, it was noted that there appeared to be conflicting views expressed by different Division Benches. The matter was, therefore, referred to a Full Bench, which by its common judgment affirmed the view that the revised pay scale was to be given. Subject-matter of challenge in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17525-17527 of 2003 is the said common judgment. In the connected appeals the said judgment of the Full Bench was followed and the States appeals were dismissed.