M A HASSAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the writ petitioners. They are Professor and Associate Professor respectively, working under the Kerala Agricultural University. The date of retirement of teachers of the said University is governed by Section 42(4) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971. The said section provides that the normal retirement age of the Deans of Faculties, the Director of Research, the Director of Extension, the Director of Veterinary Research and Education, the Director of Post Graduate Studies, the Professor and the other categories of teachers of the University shall be sixty years. Recently, the Government have amended Rule 60(a) of Part I, Kerala Service Rules (for short "K.S.R."), modifying the date of retirement of Government Servants as the last day of the financial year in which the incumbent attains the age of 55. As far as the teachers of Government Schools, aided Schools, Government Colleges and Private Colleges were concerned, the date of retirement was the last day of the academic year, which was normally 31st March of the concerned year. In view of the amendment to Rule 60(a) of Part I, K.S.R., introduced by the Government, which was meant for non-teaching staff, the appellants submit, they should be allowed to continue in service up to 31.3.2010. Since their date of retirement is governed by a plenary statutory provision in the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971 and they were never governed by Rule 60 (a) of Part I, K.S.R., the above claim made is plainly untenable and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in the case of some officers in the non-teaching stream like Labour Officer etc., they were granted the benefit of the amendment to Rule 60(a) of Part I, K.S.R., introduced by the Government, by the University. They were normally retiring at the age of 55. The appellants submit, the said retirement age was fixed by Section 44(5) of the Kerala Agricultural Act and therefore, the said benefit should not have been extended to them. Even if somebody is wrongly granted a benefit, the same will not enure to the benefit of the appellants. They have to stand on their own rights. In the absence of any legal right and a corresponding duty in the University, the claim of the appellants cannot be upheld.