PROF C MUNI SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1990, dated 22. 7. 2002, which was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1926 of 2002, dated 20. 3. 2003. Whereas, Sri M. V. Raja ram, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has stated that the issue in this writ petition is not settled and it is slightly different. Learned, Counsel has urged that G. O. Ms. Nos. 276 and 277, education Department, dated 2. 12. 1993 and the Pension Rules of the respondent-University, which clearly state that no teacher is entitled to count any service rendered after having attained the age of 58 years or any emoluments received thereafter for the purpose of pension, were not taken into consideration by this Court earlier.

(2.) IN fact, being aggrieved by an order dated 7. 11. 2003 made in a similar matter i. e. , Writ Petition No. 18808 of 2003, the university carried the matter in appeal being w. A. No. 1951 of 2004 raising the same question, but the Division Bench did not agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the University and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) IN the circumstances, I am of the view that no fresh ground is raised to disagree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue that arises for consideration is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in WP no. 5968 of 1990, dated 22. 7. 2002, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in Writ appeal No. 1926 of 2002, dated 20. 3. 2003 as also the judgment in WP No. 18808 of 2003, which was confirmed in WA No. 1951 of 2004 on 24. 11. 2004.