Kerala High Court
M,V.Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
OP(KAT) NO. 209 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 874/2022 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
M. V.JAYARAJAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MULLANKARA HOUSE,
NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,WORKING AS OFFICE ATTENDANT IN K.K.T.M.
GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,PULLUT, THRISSUR DISTRICT-PH :
9895404553, PIN - 680567
BY ADV P.R.SHAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY TO SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANENTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL
K.K.T.M. GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, PULLUT, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680663
4 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
VIKAS BHAVAN P. O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033,
PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON 7-7-2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
OP (KAT) 209 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P.
The above OP (KAT) is filed against the dismissal of the Original
Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking extension of
his retirement by three more years so as to compensate the loss caused for
the delay in issuance of the appointment order.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the original petition are
as follows:-
The petitioner was provisionally engaged as Peon on contract basis at
K.K.T.M. Government College in Thrissur district. After the term of the
appointment was over, the Government issued a scheme for regular
appointment of employees appointed on provisional basis and the petitioner
applied for the same. Alleging that the benefits of the scheme was not
sanctioned, the petitioner filed O.A. (Ekm) 342 of 2016 which was disposed
of directing the Secretary to Social Justice Department, Government
Secretariat. Thiruvananthapuram, to pass appropriate orders in the
representation preferred, pursuant to which order dated 27-7-2020 was
passed. The said order was directed by the Tribunal to be implemented
within a period of three months which was also not complied with on time
and ultimately the appointment order Annexure-A1 was issued after a delay
of nearly three years. The petitioner contends that, the applicant who at the
time of Annexure -A1 was 58 years got only two years and thus, the
petition was filed before the Tribunal seeking extension of the term by a
OP (KAT) 209 of 2022
period of three years, which according to the petitioner was lost solely due
to the delay in issuing the orders of appointment, despite the directions of
the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal found that it cannot go beyond the four corners of
law and hence retirement age or extension of the service beyond the
age of superannuation, viz., 60 years, cannot be granted in terms of the
provisions of the National Pension Scheme or Annexure A1 appointment
order and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the application. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal, the above original petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that it is for no
fault of his that the appointment was delayed by three years and the only
way in which the delay can be compensated is by extending the
retirement age by another three years from the date of superannuation. He
also relies on the judgment of this Court in Rajappan Nair v. State of
Kerala & Others (1984 KLT 141) which held that if the Government
servant was not promoted in time for no fault of his and when he is later
promoted with retrospective effect, he will be entitled to restoration of all
benefits due to him. Learned counsel argues that the above decision is
squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the records, we do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error in
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner knew
even at the time of Annexure A1, the appointment order that his age of
superannuation is 60 years and without demur, had accepted the same and
OP (KAT) 209 of 2022
worked for two years, pursuant to the order of appointment since he joined
at the of 58 years. There is nothing in the decision cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner which comes to the rescue of the petitioner as
the said decision only held that, on a promotion due to a government
servant which was not given on time but later given with retrospective
effect, then the government servant is naturally entitled to restoration of
the benefits which he has lost not on account of his conduct or laches and
accordingly, the Government should restore to him all that is lost by way
of salary or other emoluments. The case on hand, as stated above, is
entirely different for the application of the above decision.
We find no reason at all to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal,
the original petition lacks merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
SD/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P
JUDGE
ani/
OP (KAT) 209 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 209/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA.(EKM)NO.
874/2022 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE-A1- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT
ORDER NO.C3/5535//2020/DCE, TRIVANDRUM, DATED.
27.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-A2- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-
10- 2017 IN O,A.(EKM)NO, 342/2016 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-06-2022 IN
O.A.(EKM)NO.874 /2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL
BENCH, ERNAKULAM
