A.K.KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking direction against the first respondent to reckon his extended period of service for the purpose of computing pension and other retirement benefits and to revise pensionary benefits now sanctioned to him. The petitioner was working as Peon (Higher grade) in the service of the Kerala High Court. He retired on 31.05.2007. His original date of retirement was 31.08.2006. Through Exhibit P2 his service was extended by virtue of orders issued by the Honourable Chief Justice in exercise of power vested under Article 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 37 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 and Rules 60(a) of Part 1 of K.S.R. But the 2nd respondent had computed the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, without reckoning the extended period of service, inspite of recommendations made by the 3rd respondent under Exhibit P4. In Exhibit P5 the 2nd respondent took the stand that the extended period will not be counted for pensionary benefits, in view of the Government Circular issued with respect to the service of School Teachers. Even though petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 representation to respondents 1 and 2, no positive action was taken. Hence this writ petition is filed.

(2.) IT is noticed that, with respect to a similarly situated person, who is serial No. 1 in Exhibit P2 order, this court had decided the issue in Exhibit P8 judgment. In the said case the respondents were directed to recompute the pensionary benefits, reckoning the extended period of service up to 31.05.2007. Eventhough, a writ appeal was filed against Exhibit P8 judgment it was withdrawn with liberty to file Review Petition. IT is evident from Exhibit P10 order passed by this court in the Review Petition that the contention of the first respondent to the extent that the direction issued is contrary to the provisions in the Kerala High Court Services (Determination of Retirement Age) Act, 2008, was repelled. IT is held that the case does not relate to enhancement of the retirement age by the Honourable Chief Justice, which was annulled by the legislature, but it is only done in exercise of powers granted under Rule 60(a) of Part 1 K.S.R. This court in the Review Petition held that the above said Act cannot be pressed into service in the case at hand. I am of the view that, Exhibit P8 judgment and Exhibit P10 order passed in the Review Petition is squarely covers the issue involved in this case.