Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 461 (KER)

VARGHESE A. K. v. STATE OF KERALA

2018-06-20

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who retired from service on superannuation, on 30.04.2016, while working as Associate Professor (Political Science) at St.Peter's College, Kolenchery, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to compute his period of practice as Lawyer at the Bar along with his aided college service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and to disburse the consequential benefits. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner secured MA Political Science (April, 1983) from University of Kerala, LL.B (April, 1990) and LLM (April, 2010) from M.G. University. A true copy of the certificate of enrolment dated 14.07.1990 issued by the Bar Council of Kerala is produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P4. A true copy of the Bar Practice Certificate dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Kolenchery is produced as Ext.P7. 4. By Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 12.10.1989, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Junior Lecturer in Political Science in St.Peter's College, Kolenchery in the leave vacancy of Sri.K.V.John, for the period from 16.10.1989 to 15.11.1989. The period of appointment was later extended till 18.12.1989. By Ext.P5 order dated 10.04.1992 of the Mahatma Gandhi University, approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science, in the leave vacancy of Sri.K.V. John, for the period from 16.10.1989 to 18.12.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was reappointed as Lecturer in Political Science, vide Ext.P2 order of appointment dated 02.06.1997, in a substantive vacancy, on probation, from 02.06.1997, subject to the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 order of appointment dated 01.06.1998, the petitioner was reappointed as Lecturer in Political Science, in the retirement vacancy of Sri.Hope Jacob Thomas, with effect from 01.06.1998. By Ext.P6 order dated 17.04.2000 of the Mahatma Gandhi University, approval was granted to the reappointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science, in the retirement vacancy of Sri.Hope Jacob Thomas, from 01.06.1998 onwards. However, no approval has been granted by the University for the reappointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science, from 02.06.1997 made vide Ext.P2 order of appointment. However, no approval has been granted by the University for the reappointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science, from 02.06.1997 made vide Ext.P2 order of appointment. The document marked as Ext.P8 is a certificate dated 12.02.2018 issued by the Principal of St.Peter's College, Kolenchery showing the service particulars of the petitioner (both approved and non-approved), who retired from service on superannuation, on 30.04.2016, while working as Associate Professor (Political Science). 5. According to the petitioner, after enrolment on the roll of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Kerala, he practised in the Magistrate Court, Kolenchery for the period from 14.07.1990 to 30.05.1997. In support of the said claim, the petitioner would rely on Ext.P7 Bar Practice Certificate dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Kolenchery, which is one issued based on a letter dated 02.12.2016 of the Secretary, Bar Association, Kolenchery. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on getting appointment as Lecturer in Political Science in St.Peter's College, Kolenchery, the petitioner suspended practice only with effect from 02.06.1997 and on retirement from service, he was allowed to resume practice with effect from 26.07.2017. 6. As per Government Decision No.1 below sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III Kerala Service Rules (for brevity 'KSR'), a certificate issued by the Presiding Officers of the court where the officer practised before entering Government service may be accepted as sufficient proof of Bar Service. In Ext.P7 Bar Practice Certificate dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Kolenchery, it has been certified that the petitioner had practiced in the Magistrate Court, Kolenchery for the period from 14.07.1990 to 30.05.1997. As discernible from Ext.P7, such a certificate has been issued based on a letter dated 02.12.2016 of the Secretary, Bar Association, Kolenchery, certifying that the petitioner was an active practising member of that Association for the aforesaid period. However, it is not discernible from Ext.P7 certificate as to whether, before issuing such a certificate on 05.12.2016, the Munsiff-Magistrate has verified the particulars, if any, furnished by the petitioner (like the details of the cases in which he had filed vakalatnama, etc.) to establish that he had an active practice in the Magistrate Court, Kolenchery for the period from 14.07.1990 to 30.05.1997. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to resume practice only with effect from 26.07.2017, much after the issuance of Ext.P7 certificate dated 05.12.2016. 7. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to resume practice only with effect from 26.07.2017, much after the issuance of Ext.P7 certificate dated 05.12.2016. 7. On the strength of Ext.P7 Bar Practice Certificate obtained on 05.12.2016, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 22.12.2016 before the 3rd respondent Accountant General (A&E), Kerala claiming that his Bar Service is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In support of the said claim, the petitioner placed reliance on G.O. (P)No.296/90/Fin. dated 05.05.1990, whereby the Government ordered that, persons recruited from the Bar after the age of 25 years to appointments in Government service will be added to their service as qualifying service for superannuation pension (but not for any other kind of pension) the actual period not exceeding 10 years by which their age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years. In the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the qualification in law and the experience at the Bar are conducive and beneficial to the teaching post in Political Science and as such, as provided under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, he is entitled for reckoning of Bar Service for pensionary benefits. 8. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, as it originally stood, provides that, persons recruited from the Bar after the age of 25 years to appointments in Government service may add to their service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other kind of pension) the actual period not exceeding 5 years by which their age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years, provided that no employee can claim the benefit of this rule unless his actual qualifying service at the time he becomes eligible for superannuation pension is not less than eight years. This concession is also subject to the condition that the period that may be so added shall not at any time exceed the actual period of the employee’s practice at the Bar. 9. Vide Government Decision No.2 below sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, incorporated by G.O.(P)No.470/78/Fin. dated 22.05.1978, it was provided that the benefit of Bar Service will be confined to officers who are recruited; (i) at the time when they are practising at the Bar; and (ii) to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar. 10. Vide Government Decision No.2 below sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, incorporated by G.O.(P)No.470/78/Fin. dated 22.05.1978, it was provided that the benefit of Bar Service will be confined to officers who are recruited; (i) at the time when they are practising at the Bar; and (ii) to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar. 10. In Mustapha Rowther v. State of Kerala [ 1982 KLT 563 ] this Court held that there is nothing in sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, either expressly or impliedly, stating or indicating that persons recruited from the Bar to appointments in Government service to posts requiring law qualifications and experience alone will be entitled to the benefit conferred under that rule. In order to secure the benefit of sub-rule (a) of Rule 25, it is not necessary that the post to which a person is recruited from the Bar for appointment in Government service must be one which requires law qualification and experience. By Government Decision No.2, something which was not there in the rule is read into the rule, thereby restricting the scope of the rule and confining the benefits under the rule only to those persons appointed to posts requiring law qualification and experience, which is repugnant to and in direct conflict with what is really stated and meant in sub-rule (a) of Rule 25. Accordingly, this Court held that, Government Decision No.2 cannot deprive the petitioner in that original petition of the benefits given under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25. 11. In Mustapha Rowther's case (supra) the petitioner in O.P.No.113 of 1980 entered service as Municipal Commissioner by direct recruitment on 26.10.1956, as advised by the Travancore-Cochin Public Service Commission. Prior to the Kerala Municipal Commissioners (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964, the recruitment to the post of Municipal Commissioners was governed by 'the Rules Relating to the Appointment of Municipal Commissioners, Grant of Leave and Leave Salary and Payment of Pension and Gratuity, etc.' issued vide Notification R.Dis.11601/49/EHLSG dated 08.06.1953 and G.O.(Ms.)No.732/L&LAD dated 29.10.1959. As per clause (i) of Rule 6, a person directly recruited as Municipal Commissioner shall be a graduate in Law and he should pass the tests enumerated under clause (ii) of Rule 6 before he is confirmed in the post. As per clause (i) of Rule 6, a person directly recruited as Municipal Commissioner shall be a graduate in Law and he should pass the tests enumerated under clause (ii) of Rule 6 before he is confirmed in the post. At the time of appointment, the petitioner in O.P.No.113 of 1980 was practising as an Advocate at the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. He retired from service on 30.09.1979, on attaining the age of superannuation, while working as Regional Joint Director of Municipalities, after having put in 23 years of service. The petitioner contended that, by virtue of sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, he is entitled to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension a period of 5 years. The representation made by the petitioner was turned down vide Ext.P3 order in that original petition, stating that since experience at the Bar was not prescribed as a qualification for appointment to the post of Municipal Commissioner, the request to count his experience at the Bar was not admissible. The request made by the petitioner for reconsideration of Ext.P3 order was rejected by Ext.P5 order in that original petition. This Court, while allowing the original petition, quashed Exts.P3 and P5 orders on the ground that subrule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, which is a statutory rule framed by the Government, cannot be varied or amended by an executive decision like Government Decision No.2, which cannot override or nullify the rights conferred under the rule or reduce the same in any manner. 12. In Mustapha Rowther's case (supra) this Court directed the respondents therein to consider afresh the claim made by the petitioner in O.P.No.113 of 1980 for the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Government by G.O.(P)No.105/83/Fin. dated 22.02.1983 ordered that the benefit of counting Bar Service for pension under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR will be extended to the petitioner in O.P.No.113 of 1980 and officers who are similarly placed and that, the restrictions contained in Government Decision No.2 will not be applicable in such cases. In the said Government Order, it was made clear that the question of amending the rule to give statutory validity to the executive order incorporated in Government Decision No.2 will be considered separately. 13. In pursuance of G.O.(P)No.105/83/Fin. In the said Government Order, it was made clear that the question of amending the rule to give statutory validity to the executive order incorporated in Government Decision No.2 will be considered separately. 13. In pursuance of G.O.(P)No.105/83/Fin. Dated 22.02.1983, the Government deleted Government Decision No.2 below sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, by G.O. (P)No.23/85/Fin. dated 18.01.1985. Before such deletion, by G.O.(P)No.22/85/Fin. dated 18.01.1985, the Government gave statutory validity to Government Decision No.2 by adding a proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, which provides that, the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practicing at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar. 14. The 5th Kerala Pay Commission recommended that counting of Bar Service for superannuation pension in the case of persons recruited from the Bar, as provided under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, may be raised to 10 years from 5 years. Accordingly, the Government by G.O.(P)No.296/90/Fin. dated 05.05.1990 ordered that, persons recruited from the Bar after the age of 25 years to appointments in Government service will be added to their service as qualifying service for superannuation pension (but not for any other kind of pension) the actual period not exceeding 10 years by which their age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years. In the said Government order dated 05.05.1990, which has taken effect from 01.04.1990, it was made clear that formal amendments to the relevant rules in KSR will be issued separately. In terms of the said Government order, the Government by G.O.(P)No.1076/92/ Fin. dated 17.12.1992 substituted the words 'not exceeding 5 years' in sub rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR as 'not exceeding 10 years'. 15. In Ananthasubramanian v. State of Kerala [ 1996 (2) KLT 69 ] the appellants before the Division Bench of this Court were three retired District Judges, who were members of the Kerala Higher Judicial Service, who retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.1983, 30.10.1983 and 31.8.1985 respectively. 15. In Ananthasubramanian v. State of Kerala [ 1996 (2) KLT 69 ] the appellants before the Division Bench of this Court were three retired District Judges, who were members of the Kerala Higher Judicial Service, who retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.1983, 30.10.1983 and 31.8.1985 respectively. They had 7 years, 11 years and 9 years practice respectively at the Bar before they were appointed as Munsiffs by direct recruitment under Rule 6 of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service Rules, 1973, with the requisite age, qualification and practice at the Bar, as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10. Originally 25 years of qualifying service was required, under the provisions of Part III KSR, in order to become eligible for full pension. Later, the rules were amended making it obligatory to have 30 years qualifying service, in order to become eligible for full pension. Claiming the benefit of the amended provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, raising the counting of Bar Service for superannuation pension from 5 years to 10 years, by G.O.(P)No.1076/92/Fin. dated 17.12.1992, which was given effect to from 01.04.1990, they filed representations to re fix their pension. Those representations were rejected by separate orders. The original petition filed challenging the above orders, praying for a declaration that they are entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR with regard to the addition of 10 years Bar service in computing pension, ended in dismissal. In the writ appeal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ AIR 1983 SC 130 ] it was contended that pensioners formed a class by themselves and that, they are not to be treated differently on the basis of different dates of retirement. Therefore, though the appellants retired in 1983 and in 1985, they are entitled to the benefits of the amended rules, which came into effect with effect from 01.04.1990. It was contended further that the date 01.04.1990 fixed by the respondents was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, though the appellants retired in 1983 and in 1985, they are entitled to the benefits of the amended rules, which came into effect with effect from 01.04.1990. It was contended further that the date 01.04.1990 fixed by the respondents was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. After referring to the decisions in State of West Bengal v. Raian Behari Dey [ (1993) 4 SCC 62 ] and Union of India v. P.N. Menon [ (1994) 4 SCC 68 ], where the Apex Court considered the legality of prescribing cut off date, the Division Bench held that, the only condition is that the State could not pick a date out of its hat. It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. Once this was done, the question of discrimination did not arise. The Division Bench noted that the amended provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR with regard to the addition of 10 years Bar service in computing pension was given effect to from 01.04.1990, the first date of the financial year. Therefore, the Division Bench, in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ appeal. 16. In Ramakrishnam Raju P. v. Union of India [ (2014) 12 SCC 1 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was whether High Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition of 10 years to their service for the purposes of their pension. According to the petitioners, the number of years practised as an advocate shall be taken into account and shall be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. According to the petitioners, the number of years practised as an advocate shall be taken into account and shall be added to the service as a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of determining the maximum pension permissible under Part-I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. After referring to the law laid down in Kuldip Singh v. Union of India [ (2002) 9 SCC 218 ], in the context of sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, and that in Government of NCT of Delhi v. All India Young Lawyers’ Association [ (2009) 14 SCC 49 ], in the context of Rule 26B added to Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, the Apex Court held that, in the three-tier judicial system provided by the Constitution, members of the Bar, who join the Higher Judicial Service at the District Judges level, on retirement, get the benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension (Rule 26B of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules). Judges of the Supreme Court, who are appointed from the Bar get a period of 10 years to their service for the purposes of pension (Section 13A of the Amendment Act, 2005). However, the benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension is being denied to the Judges of the High Court appointed from the Bar, which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 11 to 14 of the said judgment read thus; 11. In Kuldip Singh v. Union of India [ (2002) 9 SCC 218 ] the petitioner therein, who was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court from the Bar, on his retirement was denied the benefit of pension as he did not fulfill the requisite conditions. Consequently, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court praying, inter alia, (a) to take into account 10 years of practice at the Bar in addition to his service for the purposes of pension. (b) In the alternative, prayed for a direction to treat the appointees under Article 124(3)(b) for the purposes of pension at par with the appointees under Article 124(3)(a). On 24.09.2002, while issuing notice, this Court passed the following order: “1. (b) In the alternative, prayed for a direction to treat the appointees under Article 124(3)(b) for the purposes of pension at par with the appointees under Article 124(3)(a). On 24.09.2002, while issuing notice, this Court passed the following order: “1. In this writ petition, the question which arises for consideration relates to pension which is payable to a Judge who retires from this Court after having been appointed directly from the Bar. Similar question also arises with regard to Bar appointees to the High Courts. 2. Experience has shown that the Bar appointees especially, if they are appointed at the age of 50 years and above, get lesser pension than the Service Judge appointees. It is to be seen that as far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it stipulates the manner of appointment of the Judges and provides what may be termed as the qualification required for their appointment. The Constitution contemplates appointment to the High Courts from amongst members of the Bar as well as from amongst the judicial officers. The Constitution does not provide for any specific quota. Till a few years ago in practice 66 2/3% of vacancies were filled from amongst members of the Bar and 33 1/3% from the judicial services. It is only in the Conference of 04.12.1993 of the Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices that it was decided that the number of vacancies from amongst the judicial officers “might go up to 40%”. The decision of 04.12.1993, cannot mean that the number of Judges from the services has to be 40%. The normal practice which has been followed was 2/3rd and 1/3rd from amongst members of the Bar and judicial services respectively and it is only on a rare occasion that the Chief Justice of a High Court can propose more Service Judges being appointed if suitable members of the Bar are not available. But this cannot be more than 40% in any case. But this cannot be more than 40% in any case. It may here also be noted that in the Chief Justices’ Conference held in 1999, it was unanimously resolved that the quota should normally be 66 2/3% and 33 1/3% and it is on this basis the Government should determine the likely number of Bar Judges and then consider whether the High Court Judges who are appointed from amongst the members of the Bar should not be given the same weightage as is now sought to be given to the members of the Bar who are appointed to this Court as far as pension is concerned.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The Government, vide Amendment Act, 2005 (46/2005), added Section 13A to the Supreme Court Judge's (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 which reads as under: “13A. Benefit of added years of service.- Subject to the provision of this Act, a period of ten years shall be added to the service of a Judge for the purpose of his pension, who qualified for appointment as such Judge under sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) of Article 124 of the Constitution.” Therefore, the condition of minimum 7 years of service as a Judge to become eligible for pension was omitted from the Section as well as from Clause 2 of its Schedule. In view of the amendment, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.12.2005. However, petitioner’s writ petition and other connected matters remained pending. 13. In Government of NCT of Delhi v. All India Young Lawyers’ Association [ (2009) 14 SCC 49 ] a Lawyers’ Association filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi praying therein that the benefit of 15 years addition of service be given to the Judge, who is directly appointed from the Bar to the Higher Judicial Service for the purposes of pension. The writ petition was allowed and Rule 26B was ordered to be added to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. The Govt. of NCT, Delhi challenged the said judgment and order and this Court upheld the validity of Rule 26B, however, the period to be added to the service for the purposes of pension, was reduced to 10 years or actual practice at the Bar whichever is less. 14. The Govt. of NCT, Delhi challenged the said judgment and order and this Court upheld the validity of Rule 26B, however, the period to be added to the service for the purposes of pension, was reduced to 10 years or actual practice at the Bar whichever is less. 14. In the three-tier judicial system provided by the Constitution, members of the Bar, who join the Higher Judicial Service at the District Judges level, on retirement, get the benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension (Rule 26B of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules). Judges of the Supreme Court, who are appointed from the Bar given a period of 10 years to their service for the purposes of pension (Section 13A of the Amendment Act, 2005). However, the benefit of 10 years addition to their service for the purposes of pension is being denied to the Judges of the High Court appointed from the Bar, which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 17. In service parlance a candidate is said to be 'appointed from the bar' or 'recruited from the bar' to a service, class, category or post when he is directly recruited to a service, class, category or post requiring qualification in law and practice at the Bar. In the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra the term 'appointed from the bar' is understood in that sense. The Division Bench of this Court in Ananthasubramanian's case (supra) has also understood the said term in that sense. 18. As per sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, persons recruited from the Bar after the age of 25 years to appointments in Government service may, subject to the conditions stipulated in that sub-rule, add to their service qualifying for superannuation pension, the actual period not exceeding 10 years by which their age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years. As per the proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 25, the benefit under that sub-rule shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practicing at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar. As per the proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 25, the benefit under that sub-rule shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practicing at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar. When the term 'recruited from the bar' is used in service parlance, when a candidate is directly recruited to a service, class, category or post requiring qualification in law and practice at the Bar, conclusion is irresistible that the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 is available only to a person directly recruited to a service, class, category or post requiring qualification in law and practice at the Bar. 19. In the instant case, the initial appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lecturer in Political Science in St.Peter's College, Kolenchery, vide Ext.P1 order of appointment, in a leave vacancy for the period from 16.10.1989 to 15.11.1989, was even before he secured LL.B from M.G. University in April, 1990. Thereafter, he was reappointed as Lecturer in Political Science with effect from 02.06.1997, vide Ext.P2 order of appointment, which was not approved by the University. Subsequently, he was reappointed as Lecturer in Political Science, with effect from 01.06.1998, vide Ext.P3 order of appointment, in the retirement vacancy of Sri.Hope Jacob Thomas. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, since the qualification in law and experience at the Bar are conducive and beneficial to the teaching post in Political Science, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR. 21. In the writ petition, the petitioner has no case that the post of Lecturer in Political Science requires qualification in law and practice at the Bar. Since the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR is available only to a person directly recruited to a service, class, category or post requiring qualification in law and practice at the Bar, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of that provision, by contending that the qualification in law and experience at the Bar are conducive and beneficial to the teaching post in Political Science. 22. As already noticed, G.O.(P)No.296/90/Fin. 22. As already noticed, G.O.(P)No.296/90/Fin. Dated 05.05.1990 was issued based on the recommendation of the 5th Kerala Pay Commission that, counting of Bar Service for superannuation pension in the case of persons recruited from the Bar, as provided under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR, may be raised to 10 years from 5 years. In the said Government Order, which has taken effect from 01.04.1990, it was made clear that formal amendments to the relevant rules in KSR will be issued separately. Accordingly, the Government by G.O. (P)No.1076/92/Fin. dated 17.12.1992 substituted the words 'not exceeding 5 years' in sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR as 'not exceeding 10 years'. Since, even after the said amendment, the benefit under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR is available only to a person directly recruited to a service, class, category or post requiring qualification in law and practice at the Bar, the Government order dated 05.05.1990 in no way support the case of the petitioner, so also Ext.P10 communication dated 24.11.2017 of the Public Information Officer in the Directorate of Collegiate Education. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that other pensioners, who are similarly situated, have obtained pensionary benefits, by reckoning their practice at the Bar, under sub-rule (a) of Rule 25 of Part III KSR. Therefore, denial of such benefit to the petitioner is unjust, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 24. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a trite, which cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. In Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2016) 6 SCC 532 ] the Apex Court reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. If the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon another person to claim equality. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.