STATE OF KERALA Vs. GOPALKRISHANA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are retired High School Assistant (in short "HSA"), who were working in aided schools. They completed the age of superannuation (55 years) in 10-2-1997 and 31-12-1996 respectively. But, on the strength of Rule 60(c) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (in short 'the KSR') read with Rule 62 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (in short "the KER"), they continued in service and retired only on 31-3-1997. All Government servants including aided school teachers retire on the last day of die month in which they attain the age of 55 years. But, in view of the said Rules, the teachers, who attain the age of 55 years. But, in view of the said Rules, the teachers, who attain the age of 55 years in the month of July or diereafter during an academic year, need retire from service only on the last day of the month in which die academic year ends. While the petitioners were continuing in service on the strength of the above Rules, pay revision for the State Government employees, which was applicable to aided teachers also, was introduced with effect from 1-3-1997. But, the petitioners were not granted the benefits of the pay revision and also the consequential change in the terminal benefits payable to them. While so, based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Account General v. Kunjamma the Government issued Ext.P6 order, stating that all teachers who retired on 31-3-1997 are eligible to get the benefits of the pay revision with effect from 1-3-1997. But, simultaneously, the said order provided that the extended period of service or the emoluments drawn during that period will not be taken into account, while computing the pensionary benefits. In the meantime, the petitioners have already moved the Government seeking revision of their pensionary benefits. Those representations were rejected by the Government by Ext.P7 and P8 orders respectively, relying on Ext.P6 order. So, this Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts. P6 to P8 and seeking consequential reliefs. While so, the government issued Ext.P11 notification dated 5-1-2007, amending the provisions of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV A of the KER with retrospective effect from 15-5-1986, which provided that the extended period of service beyond the actual date of superannuation, on the strength of Sub-rue (c) of Rule 60 of Part I of the KSR shall not be reckoned as qualifying service for promotion, increment and pension. The petitioners amended the Writ Petition, incorporating the challenge against Ext.P11 also. They submit, they have a vested right to have their pensionary benefits revised, taking into account the pay revision granted to them with effect from 1-3-1997. The said vested right cannot be taken away by an amendment to the Rule, as was done under Ext.P11. The petitioners also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court, to contend that vested rights cannot be taken away by a subordinate legislation. They also submitted that the Full Bench decision in Kunjamma's case (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court also. In view of the saiddecision, since their retirement takes effect only from 31-3-1997, they are entitled to count the last month's revised emoluments also, to compute the last ten months' emoluments. If that be so, that will have some impact on the monthly pension and D.C.R.G payable to them. So, the amendment to Rule 62 of the KER, introduced as per Ext.P11, is highly arbitrary and unjust and is liable to be declared so, it is submitted.

(2.) The State has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders and also the impugned amendment. According to it, the Full Bench dealt with only the pay revision. The benefit of pay revision has been granted to all teachers, pursuant to that judgment and the amendment to Rule 60 of part 1 of the KSR was introduced, denying the pay revision benefits, only with effect from 15-12-2000, But, regarding the grant of pensionary benefits for the extended service, any ambiguity that lingered was removed by the amendment introduced as per S.R.O No. 591/2006 under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, to Rule 60(c) of Part I of the KSR. The State also pointed out that the decision in Kunjamma's case (supra) dealt with only the pay revision. Therefore, the State was fully competent to bring amendment to the Rules in relation to other matters, like pension etc., with retrospective effect.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. We also had the benefit of hearing the learned Counsel appearing in the connected writ petitions, wherein similar points arose for decision.