MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were the petitioners in O. P. 20113/95. Original Petition was filed praying for a declaration that those who have opted under Chapter XIV C of the Kerala Education Rules are entitled to continue in service with all existing service and retirement benefits till the age of 60 years notwithstanding the provisions of R. 4 of Chapter XXVIIB of the KER. A direction was also sought for against the Government not to retire the petitioners on superannuation till they attain the age of 60 years and to continue to extend them the existing benefits of the Rules applicable to Government employees governed by Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Learned Single Judge did not grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and dismissed the Writ petition, against winch this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) SHOT fads which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff of St. Micheal's Anglo-Indian High School and St. Teresa's Anglo-Indian High School . Both the schools are governed by the Rules of Anglo-Indian Schools in Kerala. They are aided minority institutions under the Corporate Educational Agencies. Previously Anglo-Indian Schools were governed by the Code of Regulation for anglo-Indian Schools, Madras State and now -they acre governed by the provisions of Rules of Anglo-Indian Schools in Kerala which was issued by the government vide notification dated 26. 7. 1974 and published in the Kerala gazette dated 10th September, 1974.

(3.) IN respect of those XIV B opted Teachers who have expired by this time, life arrears will be paid to the legal heirs following the same procedure as for the normal life time arrears of pension. (By order of the Governor) P. PARTHAN Additional Secretary in charge". 4. Counsel for petitioners Sri. Goyindh K. Bharathan submitted that effect of Ext. P9 is that XIV B opted teacher have been conferred with the benefits of extended service upto 60 years for the purpose of superannuation and also deemed eligible for all the provisions under the liberalised pension schemes applicable to teachers who opted XIV C as well. Counsel submitted that all the staff, teaching and non-teaching teachers of anglo-INdian Schools formed a homogeneous group and this group was directed to exercise option under Ext. P1 and some of them opted Chapter XIV C so as to retire at the age of 55 with better retirement benefits and others who have opted Chapter XIV B to retire at the age of 60 years with lesser retirement benefits. There was an intelligible differentia between Chapter XIV B optees and Chapter XIVC optees, that is, loss of five years service for Chapter XFV C optees were compensated by better retirement benefits, at the same time the gain of 5 years for Chapter XIV B optees were adjusted by giving them lesser pensionary benefits. The equilibrium between two optees therefore was maintained since both of them formed a homogeneous group. But this has been unsettled by ext. P9 order, by giving XIV B optees the same retirement benefit which was made available to Chapter XIV C optees, leaving the XIV C optees at a disadvantage position by loss of five years. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioners having opted benefit of XIV C of the K. E. R. were estopped from contending that they are entitled to continue upto 60 years of age which is applicable only to xiv B optees. It is also his case that petitioners with open eyes exercised option and the option is final. It is his further contention having exercised option under XIV C petitioners had benefits like pension, D. C. R. G. , family pension, commutation value of pension etc. and thereafter cannot be permitted to continue in service upto 60 years of age. Further it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that benefits was extended to Chapter XIV B optees only by implementation of the judgment of this Court. Learned Government pleader also -submitted that the earlier judgments of this Court were rendered on the basis of Nakara s case which was explained in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union INdia, AIR 1990 SC 1782, A. I. Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. v. Union of INdia. AIR 1992 SC 767 and union of INdia v. P. N. Menon, AIR 1994 2221 etc.