IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16132 of 2004(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.C.YACOB, S/O.CHANDY, AGED 61 YEARS, L.P.S.A.(RTIRED) M.T.L.P.S.ALMURI, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKALKUDI HOUSE, KURUPPUMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MR.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. MR.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN MR.HARIRAJ SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN MR.SURAJ.S SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B. REMANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON 26/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16132/2004-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/03/2002 IN O.P. NO. 364/1998 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2002 IN O.P. NO. 27676/2002 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C./1634/2003 DATED 07/05/2003 WAS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/09/2003 IN WP(C) NO. 29114/2002 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OREDER NO.C.1634/03 DATED 13/02/2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16132 of 2004-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service as L.P.S.A. He is aggrieved by the denial of salary for the period from 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was superannuated from service on 31.10.1998, but he was entitled for continuance in service upto 31.3.1999 in terms of Rule 60(c) of Part I K.S.R. This period is liable to be counted for all service benefits including pay revision benefits. 3. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and the same was the subject matter of challenge in O.P. No.364/1998. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment rendered therein. Ext.P2 is the judgment wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in the representation. By Ext.P3, a correction was entered in the remark column of the statement of fixation of pay by substituting the date 31.3.1999 as 31.10.1998. The petitioner made a representation as Ext.P4 against the same which was directed to be disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational wpc 16132/2004 2 Officer in the matter. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The stand taken in Ext.P6 is that in the judgment in O.P. No.364/1998, it is declared that he will be deemed to be in service upto the date of superannuation. Hence, the salary from 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999 cannot be disbursed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the right conferred under Rule 60(c) of Part I K.S.R. cannot be denied to the petitioner. According to the said provision, the teaching staff of all educational institutions who completed the age of 55 years during the course of an academic year shall continue in service till the last day of the month in which the academic year ends. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for continuance upto 31.3.1999 and consequential benefits ought to have been sanctioned. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the stand taken is that the petitioner is eligible for pay and allowances only upto 31.10.1998, the date of superannuation as per the judgment dated 14.3.2002 in O.P. No.364/1998. 7. Therefore, the question turns upon the findings rendered in Ext.P1 judgment itself. In the said writ petition, the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was challenged. On the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, a punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed against him. Ultimately, the Manager imposed a punishment of wpc 16132/2004 3 compulsory retirement from service with effect from 31.7.1996 by Ext.P9 order produced in the said writ petition. 8. This Court found that the enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV- A K.E.R. was not held and no report was obtained. Previous sanction of the District Educational Officer was also not obtained. In that view of the matter, it was held that the action taken against the petitioner is in gross violation of the rules governing the same. It was declared that the impugned orders are ultra vires and therefore void. The operative portion of the judgment contained in para 7 reads as follows: “The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner has reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the Original Petition. So, he will be deemed to be in service till the date of superannuation. After retirement, no action to impose any punishment as contemplated under Rule 65 can be imposed on him.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the finding that the petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits which will include the right for continuance in service in terms of Rule 60(c) and the monetary benefits flowing therefrom including the benefits of pay revision. This Court did not obviously allow the benefits of continuance upto the end of the academic year, namely, 31st of March of the year in which the petitioner superannuated from service. This Court declared that he will be deemed to be in service till the date of superannuation. The date of wpc 16132/2004 4 superannuation admittedly is 31.10.1998. The judgment itself is dated 14.3.2002, long after the date of superannuation and the end of the academic year. The petitioner never sought for a direction by this Court in the said writ petition, to treat the petitioner as retired from service on 31.3.1999. The said judgment has become final also. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the purpose of getting consequential benefits, he should be deemed to have been continued in service upto the end of March of next year, viz. 31.3.1999. 10. The right of the petitioner for continuance under Rule 60(c) of Part I K.S.R. has not been declared by this Court in Ext.P1. The petitioner, at this stage, cannot contend for the position that he should be deemed to have been continued upto 31st March of the year 1999. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/