K A JOHN Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Second Grade Professor (Non-Cadre) in the St. Thomas College, Palai which is affiliated to the Kerala University. The question in this Writ Appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to remain in office till he attains the age of 60. That was the question before the learned single Judge also and the learned Judge found that he is bound to retire at the age of 55 and that he has no option to continue till the age of 60. The claim for retirement at the age of superannuation at the age of 60 is made by invoking Statute 4A of the First Statutes of the Kerala University relating to Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance and Age of retirement etc. That Statute reads:

(2.) The decision of this Court in Sundararaju Iyer v. State of Kerala (1980 (1) ILR Ker. 181) does not lay down any proposition which would be of assistance to the appellant here. The Division Bench rightly stated the principles in Para.7 of the judgment. We may enumerate those principles here:

(3.) The learned counsel urged a contention that there has been a subsequent amendment to Statute 4(a) which amendment enabled even teachers in aided and Government schools to opt for the advantage of the retirement age of 60 and if that be so there is no reason why the same benefit should be denied to a person like the appellant whose prior service stands on a better footing than that of a teacher in a school. Ext. P3 is relied on as the amendment in question. The Original Petition is not sought to be amended. It is not for this Court to consider such amendment urged at the hearing. Of course if there is any such amendment and a class of people whose claims are not as good as the petitioner's have been treated preferentially by an amendment it is open to the petitioner to seek the same treatment by representing to the Government. This decision need not stand in the way of such representation. We are only indicating that we are not going into it while at the same time this need not be taken to conclude the fact of any representation that the petitioner may make to the Government. Subject to this the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.