M. V.Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.