Pranam I shall share it in the groups which may be relevant with the specific quote of the SC: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6994/2021 DR. G. SADASIVAN NAIR ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T NAGARATHNA J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29 th August 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 988/2012, wherein the aforesaid writ appeal was dismissed. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (a) The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar - AIR 1971 SC 1409, wherein it was held that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which is existing at the time of retirement. Similarly, in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed - 1997 (7) SCC 241, it was held that the emoluments forming a part of the pension payable to an employee shall be determined on the basis of the rule existing as on the date of retirement. In light of the above citations of this Court, the High Court stated that the right to receive pension arises and crystallises into a vested right only on the date of superannuation. The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to obtain pension in accordance with the rules existing as on the date of superannuation. (b) The High Court found that the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant herein, that other Universities require candidates to possess Bar experience for appointment as teaching faculty, was irrelevant and inconsequential. (c) The High Court held that the Government was authorised under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to make laws determining service conditions of Government employees and to amend such laws, even retrospectively. 12. The writ appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by the High Court on making the afforested observations. Extract of the SC Judgement: 32.While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25 (a). The law, as recognized by this Court in Deoki NandanPrasad and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed(supra) unequivocally states that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated. KR IRS 3/12/21 32. While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25 (a). The law, as recognized by this Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed (supra) unequivocally states that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated. On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 10:27, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/httpswwwlivelawinuploaddr-g-sadasivan-nair-v-cochin-university-of-science-and-technology-701-405170-405171.pdf > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorFKJczycqA9m0-JPRUzGM1QvDM9RUHqdz_O3Dz2Cs7EQ%40mail.gmail.com.
