UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. K.MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by which relying upon the judgment dated 14.02.2006 in W.P.(C) No.25669 of 2004, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service until the age of 60. Petitioner was appointed as a Project Officer working in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE). The aforesaid agency commenced its activities as per the scheme of the Central Government, which was later discontinued by the Central Government. In order to avoid retrenchment of the employees, University continued the same project as a self financing institution. The employees in the self financing institution have to retire at the age of 56. However, some of the teachers, who were engaged in the above establishment approached this Court, claiming that they should be permitted to retire only at the age of 60 as that of teachers in the University. By the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25669 of 2004, it was held that insofar as the said petitioner was working as a teacher, he should be considered as a teacher of the University and therefore, he should be permitted to superannuate at the age of 60.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the University submits that as far as the Project Officer is concerned, he was not working in the position of a teacher in the University and he should therefore retire at the age of 56. The issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12179 of 2016 decided on 08.07.2016.

(3.) In view of the Division Bench judgment in Dr. P. Gopinathan Pillai's case [W.P.(C) No.12179 of 2016] (supra), it is rather clear that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service until the age of 60. Paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: