Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The main ground urged in this review petition is that taken in ground ‘e’, which reads as under; “It is submitted that those whose date of superannuation, (i.e., completion of 55 years of age) was before 01.03.1997 will be considered only as “per 01.03.1997 pensioners and will be granted only such benefit due to them and those of teachers who continued in service beyond the age of superannuation (i.e. on 01.03.1997) will not get the pensionary benefits as applicable to others who retired after 01.03.1997. Even if a person is continued in service beyond 55 years (i.e date of superannuation) his pension will be fixed on the basis of average 10 months pay preceding the date of actual superannuation and not 31.03.1997 when he/she stopped working. This position has been made clear in Ext.R1(a) Government Order dated 15.12.2000. The petitioner’s case is covered by Ext. R1(a) and R1(b) Government Orders. As far as the claim made in the Writ Petition is concerned, Petitioners’ case stand in a different footing. This is being implemented from 1986 onwards in respect of all such employees getting such extension every year.” Further, an amendment to the rule 60(c) part-I KSR issued as per SRO.No.591/60 published in Kerala Gazette dated 11.8.06 is also relied on to contend that the revision of retirement benefits or pay revision will not be available to the teachers who continued in service until the end of the academic year beyond attaining the age of 55 years. 2. The Writ petitioners attained the age of 55 before 1.3.1997 and retired from service on 31.3.1997 being teachers in aided colleges, because their age of retirement was covered by Rule 60(c) part-I KSR. Ext. P3 order dated 21.12.1999 was issued by the Government of Kerala revising the scale of pay of teachers in Universities and affiliated colleges with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996. In para 13.2 of the said order it was provided that “Retirement benefits will be applied to College/University teachers including Physical Education teachers as per the existing pension rules under the State Government.” (emphasis supplied). Thus in the light of Ext.P3 the existing provisions as applicable to teachers in State service are made applicable to the aided college teachers like the Writ petitioners. Thus in the light of Ext.P3 the existing provisions as applicable to teachers in State service are made applicable to the aided college teachers like the Writ petitioners. This shall have to be worked out based on the emoluments drawn on or the average emoluments, as the case may be, as on the date of retirement on superannuation. 3. The age of superannuation as provided in Rule 60(a) part I Kerala Service Rules is 55 years in every case other than where “Except as otherwise provided” in those rules, as revealed from the opening words of that rule. As regards teachers, exceptional provision is contained in Rule 60(c) providing that teaching staff of all the educational institutions including principals of colleges who complete the age of 55 during the course of academic year shall continue in service till the last day of the month in which the academic year ends. This rule is admittedly made applicable to aided college teachers as per University Statutes. 4. Academic year ends in the month of March. Therefore, the teachers will retire only at the end of the academic year in which they attain the age of 55 years and not in the month in which they attain that age. So in the case of all the writ petitioners, they retired from service in accordance with Rule 60(c) on 31.3.97. Necessarily, as Ext. P3 pay revision which has retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 is applicable to the writ petitioners, their pay and allowances and retirement benefits have to be worked out as having retired from service on 31.3.1997. 5. An amendment to Rule 60(c) issued on 11.8.06 far later than their retirement and than the judgment sought to be reviewed cannot be applied to review the judgment, even if that amended rule has retrospective effect, to take away the benefits available to the writ petitioners from out of the judgment. 6. More over the ground for review urged and as extracted above proceeds on the basis that the date of superannuation of the writ petitioners is on completion of 55 years. This is an erroneous assumption. 6. More over the ground for review urged and as extracted above proceeds on the basis that the date of superannuation of the writ petitioners is on completion of 55 years. This is an erroneous assumption. When Rule 60(a) Part I KSR provides the date of superannuation as the last day of the month in which an incumbent attains the age of 55 years, it is specifically stated in the opening words of that rule that it is ‘Except as otherwise expressly provided in those rules.” Rule 60(c) is an express exception in the case of teachers who will retire from service only on the last day of the academic year in which they attain the age of superannuation. Therefore in the case of teachers like the writ petitioners the date of superannuation is 31.3.1997, the last day of the academic year and not before 1.3.1997 when they attained the age of 55 years. In the aforesaid circumstances the R.P fails and is dismissed.