Dismissed

Syama Krishnan.R v. University of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2023WA/1805/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal, the appellant, an instructor at the University of Kerala, sought to be treated as a teacher for retirement age purposes. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment followed the 'non-teaching staff' procedure, noting the question was an omission during induction.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal numbering WA 1805 of 2023 is dismissed accordingly.

Syama Krishnan.R Vs University of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

1945

¶8

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

¶9

JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2023 IN WP(C) 21051/2023

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶11

SYAMA KRISHNAN.R., AGED 56 YEARS S/ O. R.AMAKRISHNA PILLAI ,(EMPLOYEE ID 5177) INSTRUCTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MUSIC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034. RESIDING AT T.C. 24/1815, SALEENAM, TEN 202, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶12

BY ADVS. T.P.DEYANANTHAN M.R.JAYAPRASAD

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

¶15

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR REPRESENTED BY THE SYNDICATE OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

¶16

BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

JUDGMENT

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶22

The short question in this intra court appeal is whether “instructor” under the Kerala University, imparting instruction in music,

¶23

can be treated as “teacher” for the purpose of retirement age.

¶24

The writ petitioner, who is the appellant herein, was inducted into the Department of Music as “instructor” as early as in 2010. The method of appointment of “instructor” is like that of appointment of “non teaching staff”, whereas the process, selection etc., leading to appointment of “teacher” are different. The appellant was well aware of the process and procedure in appointing “instructor”. On eve of his retirement, he has come up before this Court with the writ petition to treat him on par with “teacher” for the purpose of age of

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

..3..

superannuation.

The age of superannuation of teachers in the

¶29

Kerala University is 60, while it is 56 for non teaching staff. The question is not whether “instructor” can be treated as “teacher”. That question ought to have been raised when the petitioner was inducted into service itself. If that was raised, the very appointment of the petitioner as “instructor” following a procedure would have been adverse to the petitioner's interest itself. Having allowed to recruit the petitioner in the process ear-marked for “non teaching staff”, the petitioner now cannot turn around and say that he should be treated as “teacher” for the purpose of retirement age.

¶30

It is true that there is no clear delineation of definition of “teacher” and “non teaching staff” as referable under the Kerala University Act. Though under Section 2(27) of

¶31

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

¶32

the Kerala University Act, 1974, “instructor”

¶33

also is included in the class of “teacher” for

¶34

the purpose of approval of such class, who are

¶35

engaged in the affiliated colleges by the University, while defining “teacher of the University” under Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, the exclusive definition would not show that “instructor” would also fall under the category of “teacher”. Anyway, this is not the question to be decided now. The petitioner having come to the roll of the Kerala University as “non teaching staff”, now cannot turn around and demand that he should be treated as “teacher” for the purpose of retirement.

¶36

In such circumstances, the question whether “instructor” can be treated as “teacher” is left open. It is appropriate that the Kerala University also revisit the definition of “instructor” as well as “non teaching staff”.

¶37

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

¶38

..5..

¶39

Giving the background of the case as above, we

¶40

find no reason to interfere with the impugned

¶41

judgment of the learned Single Judge, who declined the relief sought for by the petitioner.

¶42

The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

WA NO. 1805 OF 2023

..6..

APPENDIX OF WA 1805/2023

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶54

Annexure A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1341/2012 IN WP(C) 15447/2007

Syama Krishnan.R v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syama Krishnan.R v. University of Kerala

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

Swami Anubhavananda Saraswathi Vs the Director of Accounts (Postal)

S.Venugopal Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Dr.K.v.Asha Vs State of Kerala

S.Lekha Vs Union of India

Prof. A.S. Thomas (Retd) Vs Manager, B.A.M. College

T.M. Koya Vs Union of India