IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 731 of 2009(N) --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 20.03.2009 IN WPC.24913/2006 ) REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. C.A.MOHANDAS, CHINIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. PROF. JOSE PAUL, PERUMPALIL HOUSE, 164, GIRINAGAR, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. N. MANOJ KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................... R.P.No. 731 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 24913 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th September, 2009 O R D E R The above Writ Petition was heard along with the connected matters leading to common judgment dated 20.03.2009, whereby, it was held that the revision of pay implemented w.e.f.. 01.03.1997 could not be reckoned for calculating the pension and pensionary benefits in the case of teachers who were continuing in service after crossing the age of superannuation, by virtue of Rule 60 (c) of Part I K.S.R. or by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV 'A' of K.E.R., till the end of academic year. 2. The legal position with regard to the eligibility to have the benefits of pay revision for getting 'revised salary' stands answered in favour of the said teachers by virtue of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Accountant General vs. R.P.No. 731 OF 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24913 OF 2006 2 Kunjamma [2003 (3) KLT 345]. But whether the said revision could have been reckoned for computing the pension and pensionary benefits including the DCRG did not form the subject matter of the said case taken up before the Apex Court. It was in the said circumstances that the matter was re- considered by a Division Bench of this Court, pursuant to the direction given by the Apex Court in the subsequent cases, leading to the judgment in State of Kerala vs. Gopalakrishna Pillai [2009 (2) KLT 39], holding that such pay revision cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computing pension as well as pensionary benefits . It was placing reliance on the said binding judicial precedent that the common judgment was passed by this Court in the above Writ Petition as well as in the connected cases. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24913 of 2006 has come up with the present Review Petition stating that his case stood entirely on a different footing, in so far as the benefits sought to be established were not based on the aforesaid Pay Revision R.P.No. 731 OF 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24913 OF 2006 3 orders, but on the basis of Ext. P2 G.O.(P)No. 171/99/H.Edn dated 21.12.1999 and hence the matter requires to be re- considered, submits the learned Counsel for the review petitioner. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that eligibility of the persons concerned with reference to Ext.P2 Government Order was also a subject matter of dispute before the Division Bench and this stands covered by the decision in State of Kerala vs. Gopalakrishna Pillai [2009(2) KLT 39]. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that by virtue of clause 13.2 of Ext. P2 Government Order, the retirement benefits payable to the College/University teachers including the Physical Education Teachers were to be effected as per the existing pension rules under the State Government. The above clause was sought to be declared as illegal and unconstitutional in the proceedings in W.A.No.1432 of 2005, as specifically referred to in paragraph No.10 and 11 of the R.P.No. 731 OF 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24913 OF 2006 4 judgment reported in [2009 (2) KLT 39]. This was considered elaborately in the very next paragraph as well. After considering the facts and figures, the challenge raised in this regard was held as unsustainable, thus leading to the verdict as aforesaid. This being the position, the claim now projected by the Review Petitioner seeking for the benefit of Ext.P2 Government Order cannot be held as sustainable under any circumstances. 5. It is relevant to note that the Review petitioner/Writ petitioner did never have a case that the stipulation as contained in Clause 13.2 of Ext. P2 Government Order was illegal or unconstitutional in any manner. On the other hand, the specific prayer raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition was to grant the benefit of Ext.P2, which virtually means to have Ext.P2 implemented (which includes Clause 13.2 as well, providing for the retirement benefits payable to the persons like the petitioner, can only be as per the existing pension rules under the State Government). R.P.No. 731 OF 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24913 OF 2006 5 6. With regard to the existing pension rules under the State Government, the law stands declared by the Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in 2009(2) KLT 39 [cited supra], whereby it has to be held that the petitioner does not have any cause of action, which accordingly was ordered, vide the common judgment passed in the Writ Petition. This being the position, there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the records and hence no interference is called for, The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk