IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 631 of 2003(A) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. V.RADHAMONY, "SWAPNA", SREENIVASAPURAM, VARKALA. 2. N.K.CHITRALEKHA, KESHAVA BHAVAN, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 3. S. VASANTHAKUMARI, GREEN VIEW, NEDUNGANDA P.O., CHIRAYINKIL, TRIVANDRUM. 4. V. SUGANDHI, DARSANA, THODUWAY ROAD, VARKALA. 5. V. SUNDRESAN, SARGAM, N.P.P. NAGAR, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 6. K. ANIRUDHAN, OMANANI BUILDING, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHIRAYINKIL P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.BASANTBALAJI MR.K.S. DAYANANDAN MR.ANIL P.V. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.FAIZAL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 631/2003-A ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.1031/2003 IN O.P. NO. 631/2003 DISMISSED 27/05/2009. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER G.O.(P)NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21/12/1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)NO.3001/98/FIN DATED 25/11/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)NO.118/2001/(91) FIN DATED 17/01/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.631/2003-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue raised by the petitioners herein is covered against them by the decision of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v.Gopalakrishna Pillai [2009 (2) KLT 39). 2. All the petitioners have retired from service from various aided colleges. The petitioners 1 to 4 retired from service on 31/03/1997. The fifth petitioner on 31/03/1996, the sixth petitioner on 31/01/1996. After the retirement of the petitioners, the Government have granted revised pension and other benefits based on Exts.P2 and P3 orders. But in Ext.P3, there is a specific clause in paragraph (6) to the effect that “those who have retired from the above category between 01/01/1996 and 28/02/1997 (including 28/02/1997) shall not be entitled to commute a portion of their revised pension on account of the concession hereby granted”. The above clause is challenged in the petition. 3. The main relief sought for in the petition is to quash paragraph Nos.(6) and (7) in Ext.P3 to the extend it denies commuted value of pension and gratuity on the basis of revised pension granted under Ext.P3. O.P.No.631/2003 -:2:- 4. There are two subsequent developments namely, that Rules 60C of Part I K.S.R has been amended as per G.O.(P).No.360/86/Fin dated 15/05/1986 stating that “ the extended period of service will not count as qualifying service for pension and the pay received during the period will not be reckoned for computing average emoluments or pensionary benefits, or commuted value of pension”. The second one is the decision of the Division Bench referred to above reported in 2009 (2) KLT 39. The relevant clause which is under challenge herein was under challenge in various cases considered by the Division Bench. Ultimately, in paragraph (14), the Division Bench took the view that “in view of the amendments introduced to R.60 of Part I of the K.S.R and R.63 of Part III of the K.S.R with retrospective effect from 15/05/1986, we feel that it is not necessary to venture to interpret the Rules concerned. Any ambiguity in those Rules concerning the effect on terminal benefits, by reason of the extension of service beyond the normal date of retirement, has been cleared now. In the connected Writ Petition, we have already upheld the validity and also the retrospectivity given to the amended Rules. Since the said amendments now hold the field with retrospective effect, we are of the view that the reliefs sought by the respondents/petitioners cannot be granted.” In the O.P.No.631/2003 -:3:- light of the above dictum which clearly applies to the petitioners in this case, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms