ROSSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash Ext. P4 order of the Government. rejecting her request for pay and allowances during the period of training. as also the request for higher grade of pay.

(2.) PETITIONER commenced service as a Part Time Craft teacher on 19-2-59. She was later appointed as a Full Time Craft Teacher. on 26-o-61. Thereafter. the Department deputed her for Teachers' Training Course between the period o-o-63 and 30-3-65. She claimed full salary and allowances for that period. A request for refixation pay. reckoning part time service. as eligible service for fixation of pay was also made. The requests were turned down. Upon that she moved this court by O. P. 5251/83. By Ext. P3. a learned judge of this court directed the Government to consider the matter afresh and determine eligibility of petitioner for the benefits claimed. calling the attention of the Government to the decision of this court in Vasu Pillai v. State of Kerala (I. L. R. 1986 (1) Kerala 674 D. B. ). In that case the Division Bench held that 'part time contingency service' and 'full time contingency service' are species of the genus 'contingency service'. and declared that the petitioner before the court was entitled to get credit for part time service.

(3.) I am unable to accept the submission. Subsequent course of events. cannot deprive an official of an entitlement available under the rules at the material time and earned by him or her. In T. R Kapurv. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 S. C. 415) the Supreme Court held that the power to amend a rule retrospectively is available to the rule making authority. but that: "this rules subject to a well recognised principle. that benefits acquired under the existing rotes cannot be taken way by an amendment with retrospective effect". The principle was reiterated in P. O. Agarwal v. State of u. P. (AIR 1987 S. C. 1676 ). In Padmanabha Pillai v. University of Kerala & ors. (1982 KLT 503 ). Kochu Thommen. J. held that even if a genuine mistake was made by the authority in granting a benefit. such benefit enuring to an official cannot be taken away. Similar is the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Radhamony Amma (1991 (1) KLT 602 ). On the date when petitioner was deputed for training. she was entitled to the benefit of salary and allowances and this entitlement was recognised in Ext. P2. A future fiat. converting a permanent post to a temporary post. cannot vicariously interact. to deprive the petitioner of the benefit she had earned. Principle and precedent support the claim made by petitioner.