THOMAS T.J. Vs. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Swimming Coach under the Kerala Sports Council during the period from 21.08.1980 to 10.12.1985, resigned the said job to take up employment as a Swimming Coach in the Mahatma Gandhi University. By Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Sports Council, the erstwhile employer of the petitioner, it was clarified that the service of the petitioner under the Sports Council would be reckoned as qualifying service for the purposes of pension in accordance with Rule 29 (b) of Part III Kerala Service Rules. Ext.P4 resolution of the Syndicate of the respondent University also made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled for pensionary benefits for the services rendered under the Kerala Sports Council. The petitioner joined the respondent University as a Swimming Coach with effect from 11.12.1985. By Ext.P5 order dated 24.08.2002, the respondent University had, by an order of the same date, held that Coaches in the Department of Physical Education would retire at the age of 60 years. The effect of the said decision was that the petitioner would have had to retire from the services of the respondent University only by 30.06.2013 the date on which he completed 60 years and this was intimated to him by Ext.P6 letter of the respondent University dated 14.06.2012. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in fact retired on superannuation from the respondent University on 30.06.2013. It would appear that by Ext.P7 audit objection dated 30.10.2012, the audit party, while considering the pension papers of the petitioner, opined that Swimming Coaches could not be treated as teachers for the purposes of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, and further, since Ext.P5 decision of the University, which took the view that Coaches in the Department of Physical Education would retire only at 60 years, had not been ratified by the Government, the petitioner would have had to retire on attaining 55 years of age. As a result of Ext.P7 audit objection, the petitioner, subsequent to his retirement, was granted only a provisional pension with effect from 01.07.2013, which was calculated on the basis that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. The respondent University also, by Ext.P7 order, noted that coaches under the respondent University would retire at 55 years as pointed out in the audit objection. The Syndicate of the respondent University also resolved, by Ext.P11 resolution dated 28.02.2015, that the past service of the petitioner under the Kerala Sports Council could be reckoned as qualifying service only if there was a pro-rata contribution by the erstwhile employer, of the pension amount due to the petitioner. This decision of the Syndicate was later issued as a University order in Ext.P12 order. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P7 audit objection which led to the respondent University taking a stand that the petitioner had to retire from the services of the respondent University on attaining the age of 55 years and not 60 years which is when he actually retired.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent University wherein the respondent University reiterates its stand with regard to the retirement age of the petitioner by relying on the audit objection (Ext.P7). It is also the case of the respondent University that, in order to count his past service under the Kerala Sports Council as qualifying service for the purposes of pension, the petitioner would have to ensure the remittance of pro-rata pensionary liability by the erstwhile employer for the period during which he was working under the said employer.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University and the learned Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent.