IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7206 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.SAUDAMINI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KADENGAT HOUSE, AZHAKAM, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DIST. NOW WORKING AS H.S.A. N.S.S. ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, WEST FORT, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER AND INSPECTOR OF NSS SCHOOLS, PERUNNA CHANGANASSERY (EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF NSS ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, WEST FORT, THRISSUR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, NSS ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, WEST FORT, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7206/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTE,R NSS ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11.2.1989 OF IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 20.1.2001. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.1.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.2.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21.3.2007. P7:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DTD. 26.9.1995 OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 27.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE N.S.S. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. R1(b):- COPY OF THE LIST OF STAFF MEMBERS NO.B3/1197/2010 DTD. 27.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER & INSPECTOR N.S.S. SCHOOLS. R1(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MAANGEMENT TO THE PETITIONER EXTENDING HER PERIOD OF SERVICE FROM 1.4.07 TO 31.3.2008, N.B3/1665/2007 DTD. 8.5.2007. R1(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER NOP.B3/542/2008 DTD. 21.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT EXTENDING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER TILL 31.3.2009. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7206 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner's grievance is regarding the date of superannuation. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to continue upto the age of 60, but the Management has taken the stand that the retirement age is 58. 2. The school in question is an unaided recognised school. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school, wherein, against the column “Date of retirement” it is noted as 31.8.2011. Ext.P2 is relied upon to show that in the year 1988, teachers who are above 60 years, were terminated by the first respondent. Thus, it is contended that at the time of entry in service of the petitioner, evidently the retirement age was 60 and the same cannot be curtailed without any notice. 3. Chapter XIV-AA of Kerala Education Rules provides for conditions of service of teachers of unaided recognised schools. In fact, the retirement age of such teachers have not been fixed therein as 60. Shri Ranjith Thamban, learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon Ext.P1 to show that the petitioner was entitled to continue upto 60 as it was reflected therein when she entered service wpc 7206/2010 2 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, Shri N. Nandakumara Menon submitted that there had been a uniform decision by respondents 1 and 2 as evident from Ext.R1(a) resolution of the year 2008 itself to fix the retirement age of employees working in unaided schools, as 58. It is submitted that nobody can therefore claim that there is an entitlement to continue upto 60. It is pointed out that Chapter XIV-AA of K.E.R. does not fix any retirement age. 5. Ext.P1 evidently, will not help the petitioner as it is only a certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school, wherein the date of retirement is shown as 31.8.2011. The basis for showing the said date,is not clear from it. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is explained that the certificate of the Headmaster is not binding on the Management to continue the service of the petitioner till 31.8.2011. It is explained that the date of superannuation of Government school teachers as well as aided school teachers is 55. The Executive Council of the NSS, by Ext.R1(a), has resolved to fix the retirement age of all employees working in the unaided schools as 58. Accordingly, a communication was issued to all the Principles of the unaided schools informing them to take steps to retire the employees from service when they attain the age of 58 wpc 7206/2010 3 years. It is further pointed out that after the petitioner attained the age of 55, she submitted a representation to the Management to allow her to continue in service for one more year. Accordingly, by Ext.R1(c) her period of service was extended from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. On the expiry of the said period, on the basis of another representation submitted by the petitioner, the period of service was further extended for one year from 31.3.2008 to 31.3.2009, as per Ext.R1(d). It was subsequent to Ext.R1(d) that the age of retirement was extended to 58 years, by Ext.R1(a) resolution. 7. Shri Ranjith Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the conditions of service of teachers like the petitioner, should not have been amended without notice. 8. This is a case where the Statute, viz. Kerala Education Rules does not govern the persons like the petitioner as far as the retirement age is concerned. Going by the same, the retirement age is 55 for aided school teachers. Herein, the Management was therefore right in fixing the retirement age upto 58, which does not violate any statutory provisions. There is no other evidence to support the case of the petitioner that the retirement age was actually 58. Even the extension granted on the application of the petitioner will show that the petitioner was also aware about the retirement age. Accordingly, she continued for two more years wpc 7206/2010 4 after 1.4.2007. Hence, the argument that the age of retirement was reduced from 60 to 58 without notice, has no merit. It is not an individual action as against the petitioner, but a decision having uniform application. 9. There cannot be any vested right for any person as regards the retirement age. It depends upon the policy of the Management and herein the Management has fixed the same as 58 by a resolution itself which is commonly applicable to every one of the teachers. The decision of the Management in fixing the retirement age in unaided schools, is of a general nature. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner had a vested right to continue upto 60 years, cannot be accepted at all. No person will have a vested right as far as the retirement age is concerned. Even if for argument's sake it can be contended that at the time of entry in service it was 60, any amendment to the same validly made by the management cannot be successfully attacked as there is no vested right for the teacher concerned. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/