Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Point of controversy in all these appeals is whether teachers superannuating during a particular academic year but continuing in service by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Educa­tion Rules, 1959 (in short the ‘KER’) are entitled to the benefit of pay revision coming into effect during such extended period.

3. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary as the basic feature in each of the appeals is that the concerned teachers were to retire on the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The said date in each case fell within academic year. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the KER they continued till the last date of the month in which the academic year ends. Undisput­edly the academic year in each case came to end on 31st March of the con­cerned year. The age of retirement in each case is 55 years, but benefit of continuance in service is granted till the end of the academic year. In each case, the concerned teachers were to superannu­ate on attaining the age of 55 on various dates between July, 1996 and March, 1997 i.e. during the course of academic year 1996-97. Irrespec­tive of their due date of superannuation, they were allowed to contin­ue in service by virtue of Rule 62 of the Chapter XIV(A) of KER. They retired from service on 31.3.1997. The Government of Kerala (Finance Department) by G.O.No. 3000/99/Fin dated 25.11.1998 had issued orders on acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee 1997 that the existing scales of pay will be revised and the revised scales will come into force with effect from 1.3.1997. Writ petitions were filed by the concerned teachers claiming benefit of the pay revision and for fixation of pensionary benefits on the basis of the revised pay. The Writ Petitions were allowed by several judgments passed by learned Single Judges. The State preferred Writ Appeals before the Division Bench. When the matter was placed before a Divi­sion Bench, it was noted that there appeared to be conflicting views expressed by different Division Benches. The matter was, therefore, referred to a Full Bench, which by its common judgment affirmed the view that the revised pay scale was to be given. Subject matter of challenge in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17525-17527 of 2003 is the said common judgment. In the connected appeals the said judgment of the Full Bench was followed and the State’s appeals were dismissed.

4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant-State and its functionaries submitted that the High Court has failed to notice that though continuance is permitted, it was clearly stipulated in the Rule 60(c) (Part I) of the Kerala Service Rules, (in short the ‘Service Rules’) that the benefit of increment or promotion was not to be granted during the period of service beyond the date of superannuation. It was submitted that though Rule 60(c) of the Service Rules does not specifically refer to pay revision, it has to be read into the said rule as it is clearly a case of casus omissus.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the language of the provision is clear and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted.

6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions the relevant rules needs to be quoted.

Rule 62 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules :—

“62. Retirement. A teacher who completes the age of retirement during the course of an academic year but not within one month from the date of reopening, shall continue in service till the close of the school for the mid-summer vacation. But if he is on leave on such date with no prospect of returning to duty or on leave from the commencement of the academic year to the date of superannuation he may be retired on the due date. If the teacher applies for any leave other than casual leave during the period of the continuance under this rule beyond the age of re