The Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan vs The Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2079 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                                      &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

        TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                             WA.No.1525 OF 2020

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 747/2013(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANTS/2nd & 3rd RESPONDENTS:

       1       THE RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN
               REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,56-57 INSTITUTIONAL
               AREA,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110558.

       2       THE REGISTRAR,RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN
               56-57,INSTITUTIONAL AREA,JANAKPURI,
               NEW DELHI-110058.

               BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU,SC,RASHTRIYA SANKRI SD UT

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/1st, 4th & 5th RESPONDENTS:

       1       RAJAN NAIR T.P.,ASSISTANT,CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT
               VIDYAPEETH,BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE-673612.

       2       THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
               DEVELOPMENT,DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT OF
               INDIA,NEW DELHI-110001.

       3       THE CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPETHA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGING
               COMMITTEE,BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612.

       4       THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
               GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

               R1 BY ADV. SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.SEEMA
               R3 BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA
     OTHER PRESENT:

                   SRI. A.J. VARGHESES-SR.G.P.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1525/2020                             2



                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of January 2021

Shaffique, J.

This appeal has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C)No.747/2013

challenging judgment dated 11.12.2019. The writ petition was filed by the 1 st

respondent herein challenging Ext.P11 by which Ext.P10 order was cancelled. As

per Ext.P10 dated 30.10.2012, the Principal of the Institute had issued a letter to

the acting Principal stating that the petitioner is entitled to remain in service

until the age of 60 years. This came to be cancelled by letter dated 28.12.2012.

The petitioner contended that in terms of clause 62 of Ext.P8 Scheme, non-

teaching staff of the Institution has to retire at the age of 60 years. In the writ

petition, the only relief sought for was to quash Ext.P11 and to declare that the

petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P8 Scheme and is liable to be

superannuated in accordance with Ext.P8. The learned single Judge, after

referring to clause 62 of Ext.P8 Scheme, allowed the writ petition and directed

that the petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits in terms of Ext.P8 Scheme.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

petitioner is not entitled to get any benefits as per Ext.P8 Scheme. Reference is

made to clause 45 of Ext.P8 Scheme which reads as under:-

"45. All the new teachers and non-teaching staff of the ASM/ASS will be recruited following the procedure laid down and through the Selection Committee prescribed by the prevalent UGC regulations on the subject. They will have to essentially possess qualifications prescribed by the UGS. The eligibility and suitability of all the existing teaching/non-teaching staff will be examined in the light of

the UGC regulations. If they are found eligible, then they will be given UGC scale with the approval of the RSKS. Their subsequent promotion will depend on their being found suitable under the UGC Regulations. Those existing employees, who are not eligible as per the existing UGC Regulations will continue to get the existing pay admissible under the old scheme."

The contention urged is that the suitability of existing non-teaching staff has not been

examined in the light of the UGC Regulations and therefore, the petitioner cannot

aspire for any benefits like UGC scale etc.

3. We do not think that the learned single Judge ever intended that the

petitioner is entitled for any benefits under the UGC scale. If so, specific mention would

have been made in that regard. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the only relief

sought for was that he should be permitted to continue until the age of 60. He did not

seek for any benefit under the UGC scale. Under such circumstances, there is no

reason for any such apprehension at all.

4. The petitioner had already continued his service till the age of 60,

which is quite possible in view of clause 62 of Ext.P8 Scheme. His entitlement

for any higher scale of pay as per UGC norms would arise only under two

circumstances. One is that the UGC norms should prescribe such scale of pay for

non-teaching staff and secondly, his eligibility to receive the same should be

considered by the University. In the case on hand, no material is available to

indicate that these two eventualities had ever happened. Even otherwise, in the

writ petition, when the only relief sought for was that he should not be

superannuated before the age of 60 and as the petitioner had already completed

the same, nothing further survives to be decided in the present writ appeal. We

do not find any error being committed by the learned single Judge in permitting

the petitioner to continue till the age of 60, in view of clause 62 of the Scheme.

The gratuity payable to the petitioner shall be computed with reference to the last

drawn wages at the time of superannuation i.e., at the age of 60.

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd