STATE OF KERALA Vs. S SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the teachers, who are continuing in service in the Government / Aided Colleges or Schools even after attaining the age of superannuation of 55 years till the end of the academic year by virtue of R.60(c) of Part I, KSR or R.62 of Chapter XIV 'A' of the KER, have got a vested right to count the extended period of service also taking into account the revision of salary they obtained during the extended period of service, for the purpose of computing the terminal benefits is the common question involved in all these cases.

(2.) There are two groups of cases. The First set of cases is filed by the State challenging the positive order passed by the Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram directing the Government to pay the retirement benefits including the DCRG, Commutation of Pension etc., on the basis of the revision of pay which came into effect from 01/03/1997. Apart from challenge on merits, the State has also got a contention that the impugned orders were passed by the Lok Ayukta beyond its competence and jurisdiction. The Second set of cases is filed by the petitioners mainly challenging the Government Order G.O. (P) 536/2005/(155)/Fin dated 15/12/2005, whereby it was declared that the petitioners would not be entitled to get the benefits of the Pay Revision implemented with effect from 01/03/1997 for computing the pension and other retirement benefits; simultaneously challenging the consequential order issued by the Government rejecting the claims put forth by the petitioners in this regard. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the amendment brought out by the Government to the Rules (R.60(c) of Part I, KSR and also R.62 of Chapter XIV 'A' of the KER) and also the amendment adding Notes '6 to 9' beneath the Note 5 to R.62(c) of Part III KSR. The common contention of all these petitioners is that their right to get the revised pay, which was brought into effect from 01/03/1997, (they having retired from the service only on closure of the academic year on 31/03/1997, though they had crossed the age of superannuation attaining the age of 55 years on or before 28/02/1997), stands covered in view of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court reported in Accountant General v. Kunjamma, 2003 KHC 1123 : 2003 (3) KLT 345 : 2003 (2) KLJ 700 : ILR 2003 (3) Ker. 169 : 2003 (3) KLT 525, which position has been upheld by the Supreme Court as per the decision in State of Kerala v. Neelakandan Nair, 2005 KHC 1150 : 2005 (3) KLT 717 (SC) : 2005 (5) SCC 561 : ILR 2005 (3) Ker. 611 : AIR 2005 SC 3066 while dismissing the SLP filed by the State.

(3.) The facts in brief: On the basis of the revision of Pay Scales brought into effect from 01/03/1997, some of the petitioners had approached this Court seeking for the benefits of the revised rate for commutation of Pension, DCRG etc. and a learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the same, which was subjected to challenge by the State in WA No. 1432 of 2005, but ended in failure. The decision rendered by the Division Bench was sought to be reviewed by the State by filing RP No. 960 of 2005, mainly contending that the rule position had undergone substantial change with retrospective effect from 15/05/1986, by virtue of the amendment brought out. The Division Bench of this Court held that the amendment of the rule was not a ground to call for any interference in the Review Petition (presumably for want of any error apparent on the face of the records) and the Review Petition was dismissed; which led to filing of SLP before the Supreme Court. After considering the relevant facts and figures highlighted by the State, the SLP was allowed; the impugned verdicts passed by this Court in the Writ Appeal as well as in the Review Petition were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.