IMPORTANT POINT
Pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement – However, law does not allow employer to apply rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th 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.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts in the instant appeal are that the appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the School of Legal Studies of the respondent No. 1 University, namely, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, with effect from 7th September 1984. Prior to such appointment, the appellant was a lawyer practising in the District Court and Subordinate Courts at North Parur, Ernakulam, Kerala for the period between 11th March 1972 and 2nd February 1980. During the period between March 1980 and February 1984, the appellant was pursuing his PhD programme on availing a University Grants Commission Fellowship. The appellant resumed practice as an advocate in the Kerala High Court and Subordinate Courts after obtaining his PhD, upto the date of his appointment as a lecturer in the respondent University.

3. On 10th November 2004, 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. In making such a representation seeking consideration of his practice at the Bar, the appellant relied on Rule 25 (a), Part III, Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “KSR” for brevity) which provides that experience at the Bar could be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of determining superannuation pension, subject to a condition that only a person who was recruited into service after attaining the age of 25 years could avail such benefit. In such a situation, the Rule allows addition of as many years by which a person exceeds the age of 25 years. The benefit of additional service shall also be limited to the actual number of years of practice at the Bar, subject to a maximum of ten years.

4. The appellant received a letter on 7th January 2006, from the Registrar of the respondent University declining appellant’s request to reckon his tenure of practice at the Bar for the purpose of determining appellant’s superannuation pension. In rejecting the representation made by the appellant, the Registrar relied on the proviso to Rule 25 (a), Part III, KSR which provides that the benefit under 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. Having regard to the aforestated proviso, the Registrar in his letter dated 7th January 2006, stated that experience at the Bar was not essential for appointment to teaching posts at the University and therefore, the question of reckoning previous experience at the Bar would not arise in relation to the appellant.

5. The appellant preferred an appeal petition against the decision of the Registrar of the respondent University dated 7th January 2006, before respondent No. 3 herein, namely, the Chancellor of Cochin University of Science and Technology, contending that the Registrar had rejected his request for reckoning his tenure of practice at the Bar for the purpose of determining his superannuation pension, without following the relevant rules in their proper perspective. The appellant stated in his appeal petition before the Chancellor – respondent no.3 that the proviso to Rule 25 (a), Part III, KSR was inserted in said Rule with effect from 12th February 1985. The appellant contended that the proviso could not be made applicable to him as the same was not in force as on the date on which he joined service at the respondent University, i.e., 7th September 1984. The appellant also stated in his representation that one Dr. Leela Krishnan, who was similarly situated as the appellant, was granted the benefits prescribed under Rule