Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 606 (KER)

K. J. Devassya v. State of Kerala

2002-09-13

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

body2002
Judgment :- The petitioners in these Original Petitions are teachers of various Government and Aided Schools. They reached the age of superannuation between the months of July and December in the year 2001. But, by virtue of Rule 60 (c) of Part 1. KSR they were permitted to continue in service upto 31.3.2002. The provisions of Rule 60(c) are equally applicable to Aided School teachers also. 2. As part of economy measure, the Government issued G.O. (P) No. 56/2002/Fin. dated 16.1.2002 providing for various austerity measures. Clause (8) thereof provided that: "The discount rate of commuted value of pension in enhanced to 8.75% and restoration of commutation will be allowed only after 15 years." 3. In implementation of that clause, the Government issued G.O.(P) No 264/02/Fin. dated 27.4. 2002. As per that, the discount rate of commutation was reduced as 5.31%. A new commutation table was also annexed to the said order. It is further provided in that/ order that commutation amounts in respect of those who retire/ retired on or after 9.1.2002 will be worked out on the basis of the new table. 4. The point to be decided in this case is whether the petitioners retired from service before 9.1.2002 or after that. The contention of the Government is that the petitioners retired only on 31.3.2002 and, therefore, they are bound by the Government Order dated 27.4.2002 providing for new discount rate for commutation value of pension. The petitioners, on the contrary contend that they retired from service between July and December of 2001, that is in the month they attained the age of 55. 5. When the teachers claimed that they retired from service only on the last day of the academic year and, therefore, they are eligible to get the pay revision introduced and also the increment which fell due between their date of superannuation and the last date of the academic year, the Government resisted it saying that the teachers actually retired in the month they attained the age of 55. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (2001 KLT 889) upheld the contention of the Government after examining the provisions of Rule 60(c) and the Government decisions there under. It was categorically held that the teachers retired from service in the month they attained the age of 55. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (2001 KLT 889) upheld the contention of the Government after examining the provisions of Rule 60(c) and the Government decisions there under. It was categorically held that the teachers retired from service in the month they attained the age of 55. Any pay revision introduced thereafter or any increment which fell due thereafter cannot be claimed by such teachers who have already crossed the age of superannuation but continued upto the end of the academic year by virtue or Rule 60(c). In view of this authoritative pronouncement of this court. The contentions of the respondents in this case are bound to fail. The Government cannot blow hot and cold by the same breath. If the teachers are not entitled to get the benefits which accrued between the date of superannuation and the end of the academic year, then they need not suffer the disability enforced during the said period. Accordingly, all the Original Petitions are allowed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to have their pension commuted according to the Rules which were in force before 9.1.2002. In the light of this declaration, the amounts due to the petitioners by way of commuted value of pension shall be released within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Any amount recovered shall be released within the above said time limit. The steps taken to recover amounts already paid shall not be enforced. The Original Petitions are disposed.