Allowed

Rajan Nair T.P. v. the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Kerala HC11 Dec 2019WP(C)/747/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition, holding that non-teaching staff are entitled to retirement age of 60 per UGC norms under Clause 62 of the Revised Scheme. The court directed respondents to pay all service benefits due within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to pay all service benefits due under the Revised Scheme within three months.

Rajan Nair T.P. Vs the Secretary, Ministry of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAJAN NAIR T.P. AGED 58 YEARS ASSISTANT, CALICT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETH, BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA PARTHASARATHY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2 THE RASTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR

¶12

56-57 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI 110 558.

¶13

3 THE REGISTRAR THE RASTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN, 56-57 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI 110 058.

¶14

4 THE CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 612.

¶15

5 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRERIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR ASG OF INDIA R1, R4 BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHUSCRASHTRIYA SANKRI SD UT R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2 & R3 SRI.N.M.MADHU,SC,RASHTRIYA SANKRI SD UT R5. SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-122019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P) 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶21

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶22

“ i) call for the records;

¶23

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P11 order issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

ii) Issue a writ declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P8 Revised Scheme and is liable to be superannuated only in accordance to Exhibit P8 Revised Scheme.”

¶25

The subject issue raised by the petitioner

¶26

relates to a scheme launched by the 2^nd respondent i.e. the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, which is a

¶27

deemed University functioning under the Ministry of

¶28

Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India. Petitioner is a

¶29

non-teaching staff. Petitioner has produced the scheme as Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Clause 62 of the scheme, petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner

¶30

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P) 3

¶31

is also entitled to get all the benefits upto the

¶32

age of retirement as is prescribed under the

¶33

scheme.

¶34

A counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd

¶35

respondent i.e. the Registrar of the deemed

¶36

University, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Fourth respondent has also filed

¶37

a counter affidavit i.e. the Calicut Adarsha

¶38

Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, wherein the petitioner was working. It is also evident from the

¶39

contentions put forth by the respondents that, the deemed University has various off campus and other

¶40

institutes functioning at various places, including the campus at Balussery, where the petitioner was working.

¶41

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the contesting respondents.

¶42

In my considered opinion, the issue raised by the petitioner can be sorted out by relying

¶43

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P) 4

¶44

upon Clause 62 of Ext.P8 which read thus:-

¶45

“62. The age of retirement of teaching staff in Adarsh Sanskrit mahavidyalaya and Academic staff in Adarsh Shodha Sansthan appointed following the UGC guideline and enjoying UGC Scales of pay will be (as prescribed by the U.G.C). Those who do not fulfil the UGC qualification will retire as per provisions of the previsions scheme. The age of the retirement on non-teaching staff will be as per UGC norms.”

¶46

Clause 62 deals with retirement and related

¶47

benefits. It is clear from the said provision that,

¶48

the age of retirement of the non-teaching staff will be as per UGC norms.

¶49

petitioner is entitled to continue as of right in accordance with the scheme upto the age of 60

¶50

years. I am informed that, petitioner was in

¶51

service of the 4^th respondent, when Ext.P8 scheme

¶52

was launched, and therefore petitioner will get the

¶53

benefits of the scheme. It is also clear from the

¶54

submission made by the respective parties that, petitioner continued in service by virtue of Clause 62 upto the age of 60. Therefore needless to say, whatever the benefits flowing out of Ext.P8 scheme,

¶55

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P) 5

¶56

since the petitioner continued in service in

¶57

accordance with the provisions of the scheme is

¶58

also entitled to be received by the petitioner.

¶59

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and there will be a direction to

¶60

respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to pay all service benefits due to the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P8 scheme, at the earliest, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No.747 OF 2013(P) 6

¶66

APPENDIX

¶67

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶68

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 431/1990 DATED 26	JUDGMENT IN W.A. -6-1991
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	SCHEME
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 07-2008	INTERIM ORDER DATED 17-
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 2542/1999,2108/20 AND OTHER CONNECT DIVISION BENCH OF DATED 26-08-2008	COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A. 06 W.P.(C) 34043/2006 ED CASES PASSED BY THE THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE HONOURABLE COURT W.P.(C) 34043/200	ORDER PASSED BY THIS IN R.P. NO. 53/2010 IN 6 DATED 20-07-2010
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 3509/2011 DATED 2	INTERIM ORDER IN I.A. 9-03-2011
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE DIVISION B COURT IN W.P.(C) 2011	COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED ENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE 34043/2006 DATED 15-06-
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 2ND RESPON EFFECT FROM 29-06	REVISED SCHEME FRAMED DENT WHICH CAME INTO -2012.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ACTING PRINCIPAL SANSKRIT SANSTHAN	LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE TO THE RASHTRIYA DATED 30-07-2012
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND 30-10-2012
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE EXHIBIT P10 ORDER	ORDER CANCELLING DATED 28-12-2012.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE ACTING PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT DATED	LETTER SEND TO THE FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD 20-12-2012.

¶69

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

Rajan Nair T.P. v. the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Nair T.P. v. the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavakkulam Sree Mahadeva Temple Vs Xavier George.N.J.

Vinay.v.N. Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Celeeshia Joseph Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

P.v.Suhas, Vs Arjitha

Saheer Babu K.T. Vs the University of Calicut

Paramedical Students Association Reg. No. KTM/DC/301/2013, Vs State of Kerala