[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr.George Mathew, S/O.Late Thomas ... vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A.No.339 of 2024
2025:KER:96292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 339 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2024 IN WP(C) NO.22218 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.GEORGE MATHEW, S/O.LATE THOMAS MATHEW
AGED 67 YEARS
SELECTION GRADE LECTURER (RETIRED), DEPARTMENT OF
CHEMISTRY, S.B. COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERY, RESIDING AT
MULLAMKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686010
BY ADV SHRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2
W.A.No.339 of 2024
2025:KER:96292
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
6 THE MANAGER
S.B. COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, CHANGANASSERY P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101
7 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOMY GEORGE
SHRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION - UGC
SHRI.R.PADMARAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
SM. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2025, THE COURT
ON 16.12.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.339 of 2024
2025:KER:96292
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22218 of 2020 filed this writ
appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. W.P.(C) No.22218 of 2020 is one filed by the appellant under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P7, P8, P16, P20
and P27 orders from the Respondents and issue a writ of
certiorari or other appropriate writ, Order or direction
quashing Ext.P7, P8 and P16 orders declining to reckoned
the period from 01.06.1992 to 31.05.1995 and 03.11.2997
to 02.11.1999 for service benefits of the Petitioner and
Ext.P20 Order of the 6th Respondent terminating the service
of the Petitioner from St.Berchman's College,
Changanaserry to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer,
Chemistry Department with effect from 05.09.2001 and
Ext.P27 order declining to calculate total 21 years of
qualifying service of the Petitloner in the 6th Respondent
Aided Management College for Pension and Pensionary
benefits.
(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the relevant provisions of the
amendment to Rule 14E of Part III K.S.R. issued by the
2025:KER:96292
Respondents 1 to 3 to the extent denying the reckoning of
Pensionary benefits for broken period of service of the
Petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Berchman's College,
Changanaserry for the period from 02.07.1980 to
21.03.1984 covered as per Ext.P1 to Р4.
(iii) To declare that insertion of Clause (b) in Rule 14E of
Part III K.S.R. with retrospective effect from 30.07.1979 by
the Respondents as per G.O.(P)No:366/2009/Fin. dated
28.08.2009 denying the pension and pensionary benefits to
the Petitioner for the broken period is ultravires.
(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the Respondents to issue
revised orders for leave without allowance to the Petitioner
for the period from 01.06.1992 to 31.05.1995 and from
03.11.1997 to 02.11.1999 as period of service qualifying
for pension as per Ext.P9, P11 to P13 and P13(a) orders
subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall remit a sum
of Rs.10,000/- for breach of the Contract as stated in the
Government Order in vogue within a stipulated time as
directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(v) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 6th respondent to cancel
Ext.P20 Order terminating the service of the petitioner with
effect from 05.09.2001 in St.Berchman's College to the post
of Selection Grade Lecturer, Chemistry Department with
effect from 04.09.2001 and treat the Petitioner voluntarily
retired from service on 04.09.2001 relieved as per Ext.P19
order.
(vi) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
2025:KER:96292
order or direction commanding the respondents to
compute, approve, sanction and disburse revised
pensionary benefits reckoning total length of 21 years of
service in the 6th respondent Aided Management
Berchman's College, Changanaserry as submitted through
Pension Proposals by the petitioner to the Respondents
within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(vii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the Respondents to sanction
and disburse Pension and Pensionary benefits and other
emoluments to the Petitioner for the past 21 years of
service with 12% Interest from 05.09.2001, superannuated
from service to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer from
S.B. College, Changanacherry within a stipulated time as
directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(viii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get
Pensionary benefits and other emoluments for the past 21
years of service with 12% interest from the Respondents
from 04.09.2001 superannuated from service to the post of
Selection Grade Lecturer from S.B. College,
Changanacherry".
3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
appellant, after qualifying M.Sc. and M.Phil, got selection and
appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer in a leave vacancy in
different spells, for the period from 02.07.1980 to 21.12.2013, in
the Chemistry Department of S.B. College, Changanassery, which
is an aided college managed by the 6th respondent, affiliated to
2025:KER:96292
Mahatma Gandhi University (the 'University' for short). It was
approved by the University as per Ext.P1 to P4 orders dated
27.08.1981, 14.10.1981, 16.12.1982 and 14.02.1985. Thereafter,
he was appointed to the substantive vacancy with effect from
04.01.1985, which was approved by the University as per Ext.P5
order dated 05.08.1985. The University, as per Ext.P6 order dated
19.02.1991, recognised the appellant as a Research Guide in the
University. The appellant submitted an application for leave for the
Collaborative Research Programme at U.S.A. for study purposes,
which was sanctioned by the Government as per Ext. P7 and P8
orders dated 25.07.1996 and 05.11.1997, under Rule 88 Part I
K.S.R., subject to the condition that the leave period will not be
counted for any service benefit. The appellant, after rejoining duty,
requested to reckon the period of service for deputation in view of
Ext.P9, P11 to P13 and P13(a), which stands rejected as per
Ext.P16 order dated 23.07.2001. The appellant submitted an
application before the 6th respondent requesting to voluntarily
retire from service with effect from 04.09.2001. He was relieved
by the 6th respondent as per Ext.P19 order dated 02.05.2003. The
6th respondent said to have passed Ext.P20 order dated
2025:KER:96292
02.05.2003, terminating the service of the appellant on
05.09.2001 after relieving him from duty on 04.09.2001 without
notice or giving an opportunity to be heard, and it was
subsequently incorporated in the service book of the appellant.
3.1. The appellant submitted an application before the
respondents to account his 21 years of qualifying service for
pension, taking into consideration his superannuation date on
04.09.2001. Since the request was not considered, the appellant
filed W.P.(C)No.1386 of 2019, and this Court passed Ext.P24
Judgment dated 17.01.2019, directing the 1st respondent to pass
orders in the application of the appellant for pension and
pensionary benefits. In obedience to the directions in Ext.P24
Judgment, the 1st respondent declined the application by Ext.P27
order dated 12.12.2019, by misconception of facts and law. The
appellant submitted a request for voluntary retirement from the
College with effect from 05.09.2001, when he had completed 21
years of service, including the leave period was approved by the
University, covered in Ext.P1 to P4. As per Para 2(II) of Ext.P29
Government Order dated 21.03.2018, broken spells of provisional
service/leave vacancy service rendered by Aided College Staff or
2025:KER:96292
Regular Aided School Staff/Government Employees in Aided
Schools prior to their entry in Regular service shall not be
reckoned as qualifying service with effect from 01.06.2016. The
appellant retired from service prior to 01.06.2016. He is entitled
to reckon his period of service in leave vacancies as qualifying
service for pension. The respondents ought to have reckoned the
period from 02.07.1980 to 21.03.1984 covered in Ext.P1 to P4, in
which the University approved the appointment of the appellant.
3.2. The appellant availed leave from 01.06.1992 to
31.05.1995 and 03.11.1997 to 02.11.1999 to pursue a special line
of study or research, ought to have been treated as deputation.
As per the terms envisaged in GO(MS)NO:83/83/H.Edn. dated
02.05.1993, the above period is treated as duty for all purposes.
The leave ought to have been sanctioned by the Government as
per Rule 91A of Part I K.S.R., and not as per Rule 88 of Part I
K.S.R. The appellant has completed more than 7 years in the
substantive vacancy from 04.01.1985, and the sanction of leave
under Rule 88 of Part I K.S.R. was absolutely a denial of a specific
statutory provision under Rule 91A of Part I K.S.R. The conditions
stipulated in the order granting leave for the period as per Rule 88
2025:KER:96292
Part I K.S.R. subject to the condition that the leave period will not
count for any service benefits, are liable to be set aside. Ext.P11
to P13 orders are granted to the incumbents considering the fact
that the State is being benefited in the field of academics by the
experience of the above Lecturers and knowledge acquired
through this Scholarship Programme. As per Ext.P13(a) Order,
U.G.C. ordered to reckon the leave period as duty for all purposes.
The Government by Ext.P9 Order ordered to reckon the period of
deputation on condition that any loss incurred by the Government
due to breach of agreement may remit a penalty of Rs.10.000/.
The appellant is similarly situated to that of the incumbents in Ext.
P11 to P13, and the respondents ought to have accepted the
penalty from the appellant and reckoned the leave period, treating
it as duty for all purposes. Ext.P20 runs contrary to Ext.P19, since
Ext. P19 and P20 were issued on the same day. The 6th respondent
could not terminate the appellant from duty on the next day, on
05.09.2001, as per Ext.P20, after relieving the appellant from
service on 04.09.2001, as per Ext.P19. Ext.P20 was issued by the
6th respondent, terminating the service of the appellant from the
College without any notice to the appellant and without giving an
2025:KER:96292
opportunity of being heard to explain whether his alleged
unauthorised absence amounts to abandonment of service. With
these pleadings, the appellant filed the writ petition.
4. In the writ petition, the 2nd respondent filed a counter
affidavit dated 19.11.2022 opposing the reliefs sought by the
appellant. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was
originally appointed as Junior Lecturer in S.B.College,
Changanassery with effect from 02.07.1980 in leave
vacancy. The petitioner got appointment as Lecturer on
02.07.1981 and he continued in the leave vacancy up to
21.03.1984. The petitioner got regular appointment with
effect from 04.01.1985. Leave Without Allowance was
sanctioned to the petitioner for study purpose for the period
from 01.06.1992 to 31.05.1995. Leave Without Allowance
as per Rule 88 of Part I KSR was sanctioned subject to the
condition that the leave period will not count for any service
benefits.
4. The petitioner rejoined duty in the college on
03.11.1999. In this writ petition, the petitioner stated that
he had submitted the VRS application before the 6 th
respondent on 01.06.2001 and requested for voluntary
retirement from the service with effect from 05.09.2001.
The petitioner's regular service commenced only on
04.01.1985 and the petitioner availed Leave Without
Allowance period was sanctioned by the Government as per
2025:KER:96292
the rule 88 of Part I KSR subject to the condition that the
Leave period will not count for any service benefits. The
petitioner's Leave Without Allowance period was excluded
from his service and thus the petitioner was eligible to get
only 16 years qualifying service for calculating pensionary
benefits. Hence the petitioner was eligible to get only 16
years qualifying service for calculating pensionary benefits.
Hence the petitioner was not eligible to apply for voluntary
retirement from service with effect from 05.09.2001.
Moreover, the petitioner had worked from 02.07.1980 to
21.03.1984 in leave vacancy. As per Rule 14E(b) of Part III
KSR the service rendered in the leave vacancy period could
not be counter for pension purpose. Accordingly the
petitioner had been eligible to get only 11 years qualifying
service as on 04.09.2001 for calculating the pensionary
benefits. Hence the petitioner was not eligible to apply for
voluntary retirement from service with effect from
05.09.2001. The Manager of the Educational Agency is the
competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings in
respect of Private aided College staffs. The Manager, SB
College, Changanassery, vide order dated 02.05.2003
terminated the petitioner from service of SB College with
effect from 05.09.2001. Hence the petitioner is not eligible
to get any pensionary benefits.
5. As per rule 56 under Part III KSR permission to retire
voluntarily can be granted by the authority competent to
make appointment to the post on following conditions.
i. He shall give notice in writing to the appointing
authority or the PSA of his intention to retire at least 3
2025:KER:96292
months before the date on which he wises to retire.
ii. Person retiring voluntarily should make sure before
applying for retirement that he has put in 20 years
qualifying service. Verification report from AG to this
effect to be obtained.
iii. No disciplinary action/judicial proceedings/Vigilance
cases should be pending against the incumbent.
6. As the petitioner had only 11 years qualifying service as
on 04.09.2001 for calculating the pensionary benefits, he is
not eligible for voluntary retirement.
7. The petitioner date of birth was 26.05.1956 and was due
to retire in 31.05.2012. Even though it is marked in the
Service Book that he relieved with retrospective effect from
04.09.2001 based on his request dated 03.04.2003, other
supporting documents are not available. However, it is also
marked in the Service Book that as per the proceedings
number G8/TS/02 dated 02.05.2003 of the College
Manager, the petitioner was removed from service. In
compliance with the judgment dated 17.01.2019 in W.P.(C)
No. 1386/19, Government examined the matter in detail
and after hearing the petitioner, issued orders. The
petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings of the
manager. As per KSR Part III Rule 29(a), if an employee is
removed from service, he is not eligible for his previous
service benefits. Thus G.O(Rt) No. 2204/2019/Hedn dated
12.12.2019 was issued in compliance with the Court
direction.
8. In G.O.(P) No. 21/2018/Fin dated 16.02.2018 it was
clarified that the broken spells of provisional service/leave
2025:KER:96292
vacancy service rendered by regular Aided College Staff or
regular Aided School Staff/Government employees in aided
colleges prior to their entry in regular service shall not be
reckoned as qualifying service w.e.f. 30.07.1979 as per
clause (b) of Rule 14E Part III KSRs. Hence the leave
vacancy service of the petitioner in Aided College cannot be
considered as eligible service for pensionary benefits".
5. Similarly, the 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit
dated 02.03.2023 reiterating the contentions taken by the 2nd
respondent in his counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the appellant filed
a reply affidavit dated 04.01.2023, producing therewith Ext.P30
document. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment dated 14.02.2024 dismissed the writ petition.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that judgment read thus:
"2. This writ petition is filed on 16.10.2020. There is no
averment in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did
not challenge the above orders earlier and within a
reasonable time. Ext.P27 dated 12.12.2019 is another
order the petitioner challenges, which älso notices that the
petitioner had not even gone to the College for the last 15
years, and since he was a person who was removed from
service, he is not entitled to the benefits of past service.
3. In the facts of this case, the writ petition deserves
dismissal on the ground of latches alone. Accordingly, I am
not inclined to grant any reliefs to the petitioner, and the
2025:KER:96292
writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner submits that he is
aggrieved by Ext.P27 order and wishes to approach the
University Tribunal challenging the same. In that event, the
time spent before this Court from 16.10.2020 till today shall
be excluded for the purpose of reckoning the period for
limitation".
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition,
the appellant-writ petitioner filed the present writ appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the
6th respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the
University Grants Commission.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant came to know about his termination from service
only when he received Ext.P27 order dated 12.12.2019 passed by
the Government, rejecting his claim for reckoning the past service
for pension. Ext. P20 order of termination dated 02.05.2003 was
passed without assigning a reason and without notice or giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In the writ petition, the
appellant pleaded the reason for the delay in approaching this
Court, and that was not properly considered by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition. The learned counsel
2025:KER:96292
further submitted that if this Court is not inclined to set aside the
orders under challenge in the writ petition, the case may be sent
back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the appellant was terminated from
service with effect from 05.09.2001 as per Ext.P20 order dated
02.05.2003. The appellant thereafter submitted the first
representation only in the year 2018. He filed the writ petition in
the year 2019. Though the appellant applied for voluntary
retirement, that was rejected since he had no qualifying service.
The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, and
hence no interference is needed on the impugned judgment.
10. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent Manager, would
submit that though the 6th respondent has not filed any counter-
affidavit in the writ petition, a counter-affidavit dated 10.06.2025
is filed in the writ appeal along with C.M.Application No.1 of 2025,
to receive that counter-affidavit after condoning the delay. The
learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is not entitled
to voluntary retirement as he had not obtained the minimum
qualifying service of 20 years as on the date of his application
2025:KER:96292
submitted on 01.06.2001. He had only 11 years, 4 months and 2
days of qualifying service as on 04.09.2001 for calculating the
pensionary benefits, which was not sufficient to apply for
voluntary retirement from service with effect from 05.09.2001.
The competent authority has considered the same and rejected
his application accordingly. It is after a long gap of more than 15
years that the appellant submitted Ext.P23 representation dated
31.12.2018, requesting the 2nd respondent to allow him all the
service benefits, reckoning the period of study leave. Since this
Court, vide judgment dated 17.01.2019 in W.P.(C)No.1386 of
1999, had directed the Government to consider the
representation, even though belatedly submitted by the appellant,
within three months after notice to the appellant, the 2nd
respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, passed the order dated 12.12.2019 rejecting the
request of the appellant. Hence, no interference is needed on the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
11. The learned Standing Counsel for UGC also supported
the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
2025:KER:96292
12. The appellant had broken spells of service in
St.Berchman's College, Changanaserry. From the pleadings and
materials on record, we notice that all these broken spells of
service, if taken together, are for a period of 11 years, 4 months
and 2 days. He submitted an application for voluntary retirement
from service with effect from 05.09.2001. However, since the
appellant had not attained the minimum qualifying service of 20
years as on the date of Ext.P15 application submitted on
01.06.2001, it was rejected by the authority concerned. Though
the appellant says that he was unaware of Ext.P20 order passed
by the 6th respondent Manager, terminating the service of the
appellant with effect from 05.09.2001, and he came to know about
the said order only from Ext.P27 order dated 12.12.2019, there is
no explanation for the appellant for not enquiring about the status
of his application for voluntary retirement till the year 2018. He
submitted Ext.P23 representation dated 31.12.2018 requesting
the 2nd respondent to allow him all service benefits after a gap of
more than 15 years, as rightly contended by the Manager and
other contesting respondents. He approached this Court with the
writ petition only in the year 2019. There is no sufficient
2025:KER:96292
explanation from the part of the appellant for not taking
appropriate steps for this long gap of 15 years. Therefore, the
claim of the appellant at this belated stage can only be treated as
a belated and stale claim. [See: P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State
of T.N [1975 KHC 471:(1975) 1 SCC 152], and Union of
India v. C.Girija [2019 KHC 6167:(2019) 15 SCC 633].
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to hold that
the learned Single Judge erred in reaching at a conclusion that the
writ petition filed by the appellant deserves dismissal on the
ground of latches alone. The appellant has not made out any
sufficient ground to hold that the impugned judgment is perverse
or illegal, which warrants the interference of this Court by
exercising appellate jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the writ
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
