IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 10003 of 2006(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.J.PADMA DEVI, DHANYA, LISSIE HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI 18. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.DIVAKARAN PILLAI SRI.V.V.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ACCOOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 10003 of 2006(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GO(P)/79/90/H.Edn.DTD 27/03/1990 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PENB1:(A)70429/95/CELL.Edn.DTD 08/07/1996 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE Edn. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(P)NO.171/99/H.Edn.DTD 21/12/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 08/02/2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 22/02/2001. P6 : COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED GO(P) 1552/2000/Fin. DTD 15/12/2000. P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.27992/2003 DTD 19/10/2005. P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 01/11/2005. P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.29367/F1/05H.Edn. DTD 27/01/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE. STU S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10003 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics in the Collegiate Eduction Service of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner attained the age of 55 years, which is age of superannuation in Government service in Kerala, on 25.9.1995. But in view of Rule 60 of the Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till the end of the academic year, viz., 31.3.1996. The petitioner's retirement benefits were fixed in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturers as on that date. Subsequently, revised scales of pay for college and University teachers as recommended by the University Grants Commission were implemented in the State of Kerala with effect from 1.1.1996, by Ext.P3 order. Since the petitioner actually retired from service subsequent to 1.1.1996, the petitioner claimed the benefits of arrears of pay in the revised UGC scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturer as per Ext.P3 as also retirement benefits calculated on that basis. Although the petitioner claimed the same, the same was not granted to her. While so, a Full Bench of this Court in Accountant General V. Neelakandan Nair, 2003 (3) KLT 525 (FB), held that teachers, who retire at the end of the academic year, by virtue of Rule 60 of Part I of w.p.c.10003/06 - : 2 :- KSR, would be entitled to pay revision benefits granted retrospectively with effect from a date prior to their actual date of retirement, but subsequent to the date when they attain 55 years of age. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER v. P.V.NEELAKANDAN NAIR AND OTHERS, 2005(5) SCC 561. The petitioner, therefore, sought the said benefit by filing another representation, which was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling further records leading to Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent and for quashing the same. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction order directing the respondent to issue appropriate order for fixing the pay of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 order as selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 1.1.96 at Rs. 15360/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 12000-420-18300. (c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order compelling the respondents to draw and disburse to the petitioner the arrears of salary for the period form 1.1.96 to 31.3.96 in the scale of pay of Rs. 12000-420-18300/- and (d) Compelling the respondent to revise pensionary benefits and draw and disburse her arrears of pensionary benefits in modification (sic) Ext.P2 order on the (sic) in the basis of fixation of salary at 15360/- w.e.f. 1.1.96.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P9 order proceeds on the basis that Neelankandan Nair's case (supra) is not applicable to UGC revision of scales of pay, but applies only to revision of scales of pay as per the pay revision orders issued by the Government of Kerala. I do not find any merit in w.p.c.10003/06 - : 3 :- the said reasoning in Ext.P9. Revision of scales of pay as per the UGC recommendation is revision of pay just like the revision of pay as per pay revision orders of the Government of Kerala. But it has to be noted that the Government had subsequently amended Rule 60(c) retrospectively with effect from 1986, whereby it has been made clear that the teachers who continue in service till the end of the academic year by virtue of Rule 60 will not be eligible for the benefit of pay revision effective from a date after the date of superannuation under sub rule (a) of Rule 60. The validity of that retrospective amendment of Rule 60(c) has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Gopalakrishna Pillai, 2009 (2)KLT 39. Therefore, although the reasoning in Ext.P9 may not be sustainable, in view of subsequent retrospective amendment to Rule 60(c) of Part I of KSR, the validity of which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.10003/06 - : 4 :-