UNIVERSITY OF KERALA KARYAVATTOM Vs. DR.V.REGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals, a common question has arisen for consideration and hence heard and decided together. WA No.1664/17 has been filed against the judgment dated 18/1/2017 in WP(C) No. 1695/2011. The writ petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order by which his claim for pension from the University had been denied. Petitioner was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) under the 1st respondent University on 19/6/1987. He became Assistant Director on 26/12/1989. He went on deputation to the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of India, Sriperumpudur, Tamil Nadu w.e.f. 20/11/2007. Until his retirement from service on 31/3/2011, he worked there. His complaint is that though he had requested for pension, by Ext.P1, the University had rejected the same. Petitioner placed reliance upon judgment dated 14/2/2006 in wherein he made a claim that he should be permitted to continue till the age of 60, which is the retirement age of teachers in the University. The learned Single Judge by the said judgment allowed his claim and it was declared that the petitioner is a teacher of the University and is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. Reference was also made to another judgment dated 20/7/2000 of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.180/1992. That was a case in which the appellant was working as Reader in the Department of Education under the University and it was held that being a teaching post, he could continue until the age of 60. Reference is also made to yet another judgment dated 14/6/2005 in WP(C) No. 3141/2004 where also a similar benefit to continue till the age of 60 was given to yet another officer. On this basis, it is contended that since he is to be treated as a teacher in CACEE and has been permitted to continue as per rules of the University, he is entitled to be paid pensionary benefits as if he is an employee of the University. The learned Single Judge having observed that in so far as persons like the petitioner were treated as teachers entitled to remain in service until the age of 60 years and in view of the judgment in WA No.180/1992, the petitioner is also entitled for pension from the University.

(2.) WA No.167/2019 has been filed against the judgment in WP(C) No. 4268/2010. Petitioner's husband in the said case was working as Professor in CACEE coming under the University of Kerala. She also claimed pensionary benefits placing reliance on the judgment in WP(C) No. 1695/2011, and the learned Single Judge directed pension to be paid to the said petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the University and its officers who are the appellants herein contended that there is no provision for payment of pension to any of the staff of CACEE. Though in the earlier judgments, this Court had held that they have the right to continue in service up to the age of 60, in the absence of any service rules under which the University had undertaken the obligation to pay pension to such employees, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing pension to be paid to the respective parties.