Dismissed

K.Sathyavan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2011WP(C)/4160/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a retired High School Assistant sought pay revision, pension benefits, and interest, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The Court held that a subsequent amendment to Rule 60(c), retrospectively upholding that eligibility is lost if pay revision commenced after age of superannuation, barred the petitioner's claim, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claims for pay revision, pension benefits, DCRG, commutation, and interest were denied; writ petition dismissed.

K.Sathyavan Kutty Nair Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 4160 of 2006(T)

¶5

-------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

---------------------

¶8

K.SATHYAVANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT THONDALIL VEEDU, ANACODE, PANNIYODE P.O., KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Retired) H.S.A., VEERANKAVU HSS, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.B.JAYACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

5. THE PRINCIPAL, V.H.S.S., VEERANAKAVU, KATTAKADA.

¶17

R1 TO R5 BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. P. FAZIL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON 03/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WPC NO. 4160/2006

¶21

AFFIDAVIT

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 2005(3) KLT 717

¶24

P2 JUDGMENT IN O.P. 6819/99 DATED 02.09.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶25

P3 CORRECTION CARRIED OUT IN JUDGED IN O.P. 6819/99 DATED 05/12/2005 BY THIS HON”BLE COURT

¶26

P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(P) 536/2005/(155)/Fin DATED 15.12.2005 ISSUED BY Fin (PRC-C) Dept.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶28

RI(a) COPY OF G.O.(P) No. 360/86/Fin DATED 15.05.1986

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.4160 of 2006

¶34

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2011

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner was an HSA working in a Vocational Higher Secondary School. He completed 55 years of age on 26.2.1997. But, by virtue of the provisions of Rule 60 of Part I of KSR, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till the end of the academic year, ie. till 31.3.1997. Thereafter, the Government issued pay revision orders in the year 1997 retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1997. According to the petitioner, in view of the

¶37

decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. NeelaKandan Nair [2005(3) KLT 717 (SC), the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the pay revision order, insofar as, as on

¶38

1.3.1997, he was continuing in service. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶39

“A) Issue a writ of certiorari or by other consequential writs to call for disposal leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same. B) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directing to the respondents to re-issue Ext P4 order

¶40

W.P.(C)No.4160/06

¶41

¶42

complying with the Ext.P1, P2 & P3 judgment so that revised pay pension DCRG & commutation in the revised scale of 1997 shall be extended to the petitioner W.C.F 01-03-1997. C) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction that the petitioner may also be sanctioned with 12% interest for the arrears w.e.f.01..03..1997.”

¶43

Subsequent to the said judgment in Neelakandan Nair's case

¶44

(supra) the Government retrospectively amended Rule 60 (c), whereby the persons who continued in service beyond the superannuation age till the end of the academic year, by virtue of the provisions of Rule 60, would not be entitled to retrospective pay revision benefits, if the commencement of the pay revision order is after the actual age of superannuation. The validity of that retrospective amendment has been upheld by this court also. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits prayed for. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶46

acd

¶47

W.P.(C)No.4160/06 3

¶48

W.P.(C)No.4160/06 4

K.Sathyavan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sathyavan Kutty Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Gopi Vs P.Marapandiyan,I.a.S. and Another

A.Jayaprakash Vs the Commercial Tax Officer and Others

N.a.Noufal Vs K.S.E.B

Varkey Chacko Vs State of Kerala

A.Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala

The Principal, Nirmalagiri College Vs the Dy. Director of Collegiate Edn.