DR. G. SADASIVAN NAIR versus COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 01-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 752
752
DR. G. SADASIVAN NAIR
v.
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6994 of 2021)
DECEMBER 01, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Kerala Service Rules – r. 25(a), Part-III –
Benefit under – Appellant was appointed as a Lecturer at the
respondent University with effect from 07.09.1984 – Prior to such
appointment, he was a lawyer practised for eight years – The
appellant made a representation before the Registrar of the
respondent University, requesting to reckon his practice of eight
years at the Bar for the purpose of determining his pensionary
benefits payable to him on his superannuation on the basis of Rule
25 (a), Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSR) – Registrar rejected his
request and relied on the proviso to Rule 25 (a), Part III, KSR which
provides that the benefit u/Rule 25 (a) would be available only to
such employees who are recruited when practising at the Bar, to
those posts requiring a qualification in law and experience at the
Bar – The experience at the Bar was not essential for appointment
in the instant case – The Chancellor also dismissed the appeal
petition – Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court
was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended
that in the case of one ‘Dr. PLK’, a Professor of Law who was
similarly situated as the appellant, the respondent University duly
considered the period of practice at the Bar as a part of ‘Dr. PLK’
qualifying service for the purpose of determining pension payable
on his superannuation – Held: The appellant and Dr. PLK were in
fact similarly situated – Both these individuals were appointed as
teaching faculty at the respondent University after practicing as
advocates in various Courts – They were both appointed before the
proviso to Rule 25 (a) came into effect, i.e. before 12.02.1985 and
retired after the said proviso came into force – There are no valid
grounds to sustain the application of the proviso in relation to the
appellant – The action of the respondent University of selectively
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
applying the proviso to Rule 25(a) in relation to the appellant, while
not applying the said proviso in relation to similarly situated persons,
is arbitrary and therefore illegal – Therefore, the appellant is entitled
to receive pension having regard to his total qualifying service,
inclusive of the period of his service at the respondent University
and the period of his practice as an Advocate in various Courts of
the State.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondents have relied upon the proviso
to Rule 25 (a) of Part III, Kerala Service Rules in urging that the
respondent University rightly denied the claim of the appellant
for reckoning the period of practice at the Bar. Rule 25 (a) together
with the proviso inserted by way of an Amendment, with effect
from 12th February 1985. [Para 25][762-A-B]
2. The proviso limits the benefit of the Rule by restricting
its application only to such employees as are recruited when
practicing at the Bar, to those posts requiring a qualification in
law and experience at the Bar. The respondent University has
contended that since the post of a lecturer to which the appellant
was appointed in 1984, did not require prior experience at the
Bar, the proviso would be attracted thereby disentitling the
appellant of the benefit under Rule 25(a). Although the proviso
was inserted by way of an amendment, with effect from 12th
February 1985 and was not in force at the time of appointment of
the appellant in 1984, the respondent University has contended
that the rule applicable in the matter of determination of pension
is that which exists at the time of retirement. That the appellant
superannuated on 30th April 2007, on which date the proviso to
Rule 25(a) was in force and therefore it would apply, limiting the
benefit of the Rule. [Para 26][762-F-H]
3. The appellant brought to our attention that in the case of
one Dr. PLK, a Professor of Law who was similarly situated as
the appellant herein, the respondent University duly considered
the period of practice at the Bar as a part of Dr. PLK’s qualifying
service for the purpose of determining pension payable on his
superannuation. [Para 27][763-A-B]
DR. G. SADASIVAN NAIR v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COUR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.