Kunjulekshmi v. State of Kerala — 1987 DIGILAW 656 (KER)

JUDGMENT V.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. This case has come to us on a reference made by Justice V. Sivaraman Nair on the ground that an important question of law fails for consideration in this case viz., as to whether a Housekeeper is a last grade servant who is entitled to the benefit of Rule 60(b) of the Kerala Service Rules. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Housekeeper on 24th July 1963 in the Health Services Department in the scale of Rs. 40-80. Her date of birth is 28th December 1932. She continues to hold the said post of Housekeeper even till this day. The age of retirement of Government servants is regulated by Rule 60(a) which prescribes 55 years as the age of superannuation. But a higher age of retirement of 60 years is provided by Rule 60(b) in favour of last grade servants who were in the last grade service on 7th April 1970 and continue to remain in that grade. The Petitioner apprehending that she will not be treated as a person belonging to last grade service and that therefore she would be called upon to retire on her attaining the age of 55 years made a representation as per Ext. P-1 claiming that she is entitled to the benefit of Rule 60(b) asserting that the post of Housekeeper held by her falls in the last grade service. As no reply was received for the said representation, she approached this Court with this Original Petition. 3. If the post of Housekeeper held by the Petitioner falls in the last grade service, the Petitioner would be entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years. The only question for consideration is as to whether the post of Housekeeper falls in the last grade service. The expression 'last grade service' is defined in Rule 12(16A) of the K.S.R. as, follows: Last Grade Service means service in any post included in the Kerala Last Grade Service, constituted by the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service, published under G.O. (P) No. 82 Public (Rules) Department, dated the 8th March, 1966, in Part 1 of the Kerala Gazette No. 14, dated the 5th April 1966, as amended from time to time, and includes service in any post declared by the Government to be a post in the Last Grade Service. It is clear from this rule that for the Petitioner to be able to establish that the post of Housekeeper is in the last grade service she has to show that the said post is included in the Kerala Last Grade Service constituted by the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service as amended or has to establish that the said post of Housekeeper stands declared by the State Government to be a post in the last grade service. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the post of Housekeeper stands declared by the Government as a post in the last grade service. The only question that survives for consideration is as to whether the said post is included in the special rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service. Rule 1 of the special rules provides that the service shall consist of categories 1 to 5. The post of Housekeeper does not find a place in any one of those categories. Rule 5 of the said rules provides for appointment to the posts falling under the five categories. So far as category No. 5 is concerned, after prescribing the method of recruitment to the said category, there was a note added below Clause (b) which read before amendment as follows: Note.- In view of the arduous and special nature of the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts specified in the table below, only male candidates shall be eligible for appointment under this rule to the said posts. TABLE 1. Peon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20. Housekeeper. Though the post of HouseKeeper is not to be found in any one of the five categories falling under Rule 1, it finds specified in the table as one of the posts to which female candidates are declared to be not eligible having regard to the arduous and special nature of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. The contention of Sri. James Vincent, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is based on the inclusion of the post of Housekeeper in the said Note in respect of category 5 in Rule 5 regulating method of recruitment. The contention of Sri. James Vincent, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is based on the inclusion of the post of Housekeeper in the said Note in respect of category 5 in Rule 5 regulating method of recruitment. It was contended that the fact that there is specific mention of the post of Housekeeper in the table attached to the Note below category No. 5 clearly suggests that the rule making authority intended that the post of Housekeeper should fall under the last grade service. In support of this contention reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court reported in I.L.R. 1978 Ker 59 between The Board of Revenue v. Chacko. That was a case in which the post of Chairman which was similarly included in the table was not included in any of the five categories referred to in Rule 1 of the special rules. This Court having regard to all relevant aspects came to the conclusion that the post of Chairman must be regarded as a post falling under the last grade service. But unfortunately for the Petitioner, she cannot take assistance from the said decision for the reason that the table on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance has subsequently been substituted by an amendment effected to the rules in the year 1986 as per G.O. (P) No. 277/86/ GAD dated 26th August 1986. The amendment introduced by the said rules is as follows: In the said rules, in Rule 5, for the table in the note under Sub-rule (b), the following table shall be substituted, namely: TABLE 1. Watchman of all categories, Watcher and Chowkidar, 2. Cleaner-cum-Conductor. 3. Cleaner (Boat Cleaner, Tractor Cleaner, Van Cleaner, Ambulance Cleaner, Lorry Cleaner). 4. Fisherman 5. Fisherman-cum-Watchman 6. Boatman 7. Lascar 8. Bull Attendant 9. Bull Keeper. Thus the whole table, in which the post of Housekeeper was included now stands substituted by another table in which the said post is not included. Thus the very slender support for the case of the Petitioner has now disappeared consequent upon the amendment to the rules brought about by the rule making authority in the year 1986. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the post of Housekeeper is also not included as one of the posts in the Kerala last Grade Service. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the post of Housekeeper is also not included as one of the posts in the Kerala last Grade Service. Hence it follows that the Petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of Rule 60(b) of the Kerala Service Rules. Hence she is liable to retire by applying Rule 60(a) on attaining the age of superannuation of 55 years. The Original Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.