T KRISHNANKUTTY AND K M CHINNAMMA, BINDER II (RETD ) Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, who retired from service as Printer Gr.II/Binder Gr.II from the Kerala Agricultural University, are aggrieved by the denial of pension and other benefits in the scale of pay drawn by them as on the last working day.

(2.) Earlier, the Petitioners were working as permanent labourers. In the year 2000, the University decided to recruit Binders/Printers in the University Press by internal selection from the permanent labourers and a Selection Committee was constituted for this purpose. The Petitioners also participated in the selection process and they were included in the final select list published by the Selection Committee and accordingly they were appointed as Binder/Printer by Exhibit P2 order. As on the date of retirement, they were drawing a pay of Rs. 7,160/- from 1.10.2009. The last pay has not been taken into consideration for fixing the pension and other benefits. The same is evident from Exhibits P3 to P8. The Petitioners challenge the same on various grounds and reliance is placed on Exhibit P10 judgment of this Court.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is pointed out that seven Press Workers including the Petitioners were internally selected and appointed as Binder and Printer. Actually, the Kerala Agricultural University Statute provides for only direct recruitment. But, internal selections were necessitated when the seven permanent Labourers in Printing and Composing Section at the University Press, Mannuthy became surplus due to the installation of Resograph Machine for printing and computer for composing work. The internal selection was done the basis of the recommendation of the Establishment Committee meeting held on 1.4.2000. Later, by Exhibit R1(a) resolution, the Executive Committee approved the recommendations of the Establishment Committee stating that the appointments of the incumbents will be provisional and subject to regularization as per the Amended Statute. From paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit, it can be seen that as per University Order dated 30.7.2001, their services were regularized from 6.10.2000, but without getting the statute amended. The increments were not paid for a period of three years, initially. In paragraph No. 6, it is pointed out that 398th and 415th Executive Committee meetings held on 25.10.2004 and 18.7.2005 respectively decided to sanction the pending increments to them subject to the condition that in case the amendment proposed was not assented by the Governor the pay of the incumbents would be regulated accordingly. Exhibit R2(a) and Exhibit R2(b) are the said proceedings. The Local Fund Audit while recommending the pensionary benefits did not admit in the audit the appointment of the Petitioners as Printer/Binder for want of amendment of the Statute. Accordingly, pension was calculated.