R.M.Gokuldas vs University Of Calicut
2021 Latest Caselaw 16577 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16577 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2021

Kerala High Court

R.M.Gokuldas vs University Of Calicut on 11 August, 2021

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
     WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 28933 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

              R.M.GOKULDAS,
              AGED 59 YEARS,
              PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,
              UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
              MALAPPURAM-673635.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
              SRI.S.A.ANAND
              SRI.K.A.BALAN
              SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
              SMT.N.SANTHA
              SRI.V.VARGHESE



RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
              MALAPPURAM-673635.

     2        JOINT DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
              OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
              UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AUDIT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,
              MALAPPURAM-673635.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI P C SASIDHARAN SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28933 OF 2014           -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner in the present writ petition invoked writ

jurisdiction of this Court claiming the following prayers:

"call for the records leading to Exts.P5, P7 and P9 and quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ , order or direction.

ii.declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till 31.03.2015 with all consequential benefits as provided in Rule 60(C) Part-I KSR iii.declare that the 2nd respondent has no authority to issue directions in the nature of Ext.P4 and that the University is not bound by such directions.

iv.issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till 31.03.2015 with all consequential benefits as provided in Rule 60(C) Part-I KSR"

2. The pith and substances of the prayers as

emanated from the pleadings are, the retirement age of

the petitioner was 60 years, but wanted to continue till

the end of the financial year. The controversy with regard

to continuation till the financial year is no longer res

integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in

W.P.(C) No.15115/2014 dated 02.09.2015, wherein it has

been held that a person retiring on the date of retirement

cannot be permitted to continue till the next academic

year. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage

submits that owing to the interim order dated 06.11.2014,

the petitioner was permitted to continue in service till

31.03.2015 with a rider that entitlement of the petitioner

for salary during such continuance would depend upon the

outcome of this writ petition. As regards the continuation

in view of the interim order entitles other emoluments, the

ratio decidendi culled out in paragraph No.5 of the

judgment in Annamma Vs. State of Kerala (1987 KHC

254) is relied upon.

3. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the

Calicut University submits that continuation of service

would only be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper books.

5. In the judgment of this Court in

W.P(C).15115/2014 dated 02.09.2015, it has been held

that having reached the date of retirement, teachers

cannot be permitted to continue till the end of the

academic year. This Court, as stated above, passed

interim order on 06.11.2014 which reads as under:

"Learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the second respondent.

The petitioner shall be permitted to continue in service till 31.03.2015. It is made clear that the question whether the petitioner can retain the salary being paid during such continuance would depend upon the outcome of this writ petition."

6. On perusal of the same, the retention of the

salary during the period of continuance depended upon

the outcome has been left open. In Paragraph No.5 of the

judgment in Annamma (supra) Division Bench of this Court

held as under:

"5.Before concluding we must advert to another submission of Sri.Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, that during the period the appellant worked as a teacher on the strength of the interim order made by this Court, the appellant is entitled to be paid her salary. That is the correct legal position. Hence we make it clear that the appellant is entitled to be paid the salary and emoluments for the period she has actually worked on the strength of the interim order made by this court during the pendency of this case, though the said payment cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of working out the other retirement benefits."

7. It is a matter of record that this Court, as a

special case, allowed the emoluments to the petitioner

therein for the actual period he worked after attainment

of the retirement age with a rider from counting for other

retirement benefits. Following that dictum, the prayer of

the petitioner is allowed by issuing direction to the

respondents to pay the emoluments for the period he had

worked after attaining the age of retirement, to him. This

direction would not be considered as a precedent but

issued in the special circumstances in view of the interim

order. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy