IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 14986 of 1996(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PROF. V.M.ANIYAN, DEAN OF STUDENTS WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF STUDENTS WELFARE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635. BY ADV. SRI.ELWIN PETER SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NOS.26586/1996 & 53632/2001 IN O.P. NO.14986/1996 DISMISSED: SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) 14.1.2008 SD/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25.6.1987 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.9.5.1980 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P3: TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL REPORT (STUDENTS WELFARE) FOR THE YEAR 1987. P4: .DO. 1988. P5: .DO. 1990. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.10.8.93 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.2.4.91 FROM THE DY. DIRECTOR OF STUDENTS WELFARE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF STUDENTS WELFARE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY. P8: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.12.3.92 FROM MR.D.P.JOSHI, DEAN STUDENTS WELFARE, ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER. P9: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.19.12.90 FROM THE DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF YOUTH WELFARE, MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY. P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED IN FEBRUARY, 1996 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.29.6.95 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P12: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.30.10.1991 IN O.P. NO.5564/91 ETC. OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.18.2.1988 IN CMP NO.3950/88 IN O.P. NO.1315/88 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P14: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.21.6.1991 IN CMP NO.10453/91 IN OP NO.6337/91 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P15: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12.4.1996 IN CMP NO.11762/96 IN OP NO.6872/96 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P16: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.6.3.92 FROM 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVT., HIGHER EDN. DEPARTMENT. P17: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT.4.9.1986 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P18: TRUE COPY OF LETTER-HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF STUDENTS WELFARE. P19: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.143/91/H.EDN. DT.13.8.91. P20: TRUE COPY OF NOTE DT.7.7.1989 TO THE DEAN, HEAD OF THE DEPT. OF STUDENTS WELFARE. P21: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.22.5.1990 FROM MR.T.SIVADASAN TO THE PETITIONER. P22: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.18.9.1991 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P23: .DO. DT.10.12.91 .DO. P24: TRUE COPY OF JOINING REPORT DT.16.11.91 OF DR.KUNHALI V. P25: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.18.11.1991 FROM THE PETITIONER TO MR.D.P.HIRE, JOINT SECRETARY, U.G.C. P26: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.11.11.1992/8.12.92 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR, U.G.C. P27: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.9.7.2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P28: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.27.9.1997 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... O.P. No.14986 of 1996 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The short question arising for consideration is whether petitioner who was admittedly Dean of Students Welfare can be treated as a member of the teaching staff eligible for continuation of service under the University till the age of 60 years. Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner who was Professor in the department of Botany, was selected and appointed as Dean of Students Welfare in the University in the year 1987. According to him, since petitioner was looking after students welfare in the course of his job, he is entitled for continuation of service till the age of 60 years. Standing Counsel for the University submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with teaching and therefore, petitioner cannot be treated as a member of the teaching staff entitling him for the benefit of longer period of service i.e. until the age of 60 years as against retirement at 55 years provided for other staff. Standing Counsel has referred to decision of this court reported in 2001(2) KLT 518 wherein this court held that a Director of Students Welfare cannot be treated as member of the teaching staff. Even though the 2 decision is rendered in the case of Cochin University, we do not think the position is different in the petitioner's case because the difference is that petitioner was Dean of Students Welfare, while in the decided case the person involved was Director of Students Welfare. The petitioner himself has produced Ext.P16 which gives the duties assigned to him as Dean of Students Welfare. On going through the same it can be seen that petitioner was engaged in supervision and conduct of college union election, matters connected with students discipline, claims of medical reimbursement of students and operation of various endowments including National Merit Scholarship and other Scholarships, collection of University Union fees and the functioning of Students Council. Obviously petitioner was not engaged in any way in the imparting of education. The petitioner has no case that he was engaged in part time or even occasional teaching. Standing Counsel for the University submitted that in the University Ordinance, a Dean of Students Welfare is classified as a non-teaching staff. In the circumstances, since petitioner was not engaged in teaching in any department and in view of the decision cited above, petitioner was not entitled to be treated as a member of the teaching staff for becoming eligible to continue in service upto 60 years. However, since petitioner was allowed to continue till 60 years of age during the pendency of O.P., there will be direction to the 3 respondents to allow the petitioner to retain the salary and other benefits drawn by him during the extended period of service. However, for the purpose of pension, petitioner will not be entitled for any benefit for the additional period of 5 years served by him under orders of this court. In other words, pension will be computed treating him as retired on reaching the age of 55 years. The O.P. is dismissed but granting the limited relief stated above.. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms