IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2564 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.C. ELSY, W/O. A.T. POULOSE, AMBOOKEN HOUSE, POYYA P.O., MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DIST PIN 680 733, (RETIRED TEACHER, A.I.M.L.P. SCHOOL, POYYA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.2564 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th March,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was working as Headmistress in A.I.M.L.P. School, Poyya in Thrissur District, retired from service on 31.3.2001. In fact she had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000 at the age of 55 years. Thereafter she continued in service till the end of the academic year i.e up to 31.3.2001. The claim made by the petitioner herein is for disbursement of monetary benefits like increments etc for the period she continued in service beyond the actual date of superannuation. 2. In Exhibit-P4, the Government took the view that the petitioner's increment falls due only on 1.11.2005 which is the date beyond the actual date of retirement. Therefore it is found that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit as per Rule 60 (c ) of Part I, KSR. A similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.Sudhakaran & Others Vs. The Principal Secretary to W.P ( C) No.2564 of 2009 2 Government & Others in WPC No.1905 of 2007 and connected cases. Rule 60 ( c) of Part I K.S.R was amended apart from the provisions of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R. Its validity was considered in the said judgment. In paragraph 7, the Bench was of the view that the claim of the petitioners that there was a vested right cannot be acceded to. Therefore, in the light of the amendment of the relevant rules, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of payment of increment etc. Accordingly , the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.2564 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.2564 of 2009 4