The main legal point established is that the Chief Justice has the authority to extend the service of an employee of the High Court without requiring concurrence from the State Government, as provided under Article 229 of the Constitution and relevant rules.

When the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court extends the period of service of an employee of the High Court beyond the date of superannuation in exercise of his power under Article 229 of the Constitution, read with Rule 35 of the High Court Service Rules, 1970 and Rule 60(a) Part I of Kerala Service Rules, deposit require the concurrence of the State Government, is the question to be decided in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioner, with 25 years of service in Army was appointed as Security Officer of the Kerala High Court as per the order of the Chief Justice dt.16-1-1978. He joined duty on 23-1-1978. His probation was declared with effect from 23-1-1980 and he was appointed as a full member of the High Court Service. Petitioner's date of birth being 30-6-1931, he was to retire from service on 30-6-1986 at the age of 55 years. Since there was deficiency in the period of his service for claiming pension, the petitioner made a request for extension of his service from 1-7-1986 to 31-12-1987. The High Court recommended the above request of the petitioner and the Government granted sanction for the same. The second respondent, Accountant General, sought a clarification from the Government as to whether the petitioner was eligible for increment that falls within the period of his extended service. The Government informed the 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 communication dated 5-9-1986 that he is entitled to get all service benefits including increment during the extended period of his service.

3. The petitioner was to retire after the period of extension on 31-12-1987. Since no suitable candidate was available for being appointed as Security Officer, the Chief Justice decided to continue the service of the petitioner until further orders in the interest of the administration of the High Court. Ext. P2 proceeding dt. 31-12-1987 was therefore issued extending the period of service of the petitioner from 1-1-1988 until further orders. The 1st respondent was informed about the order issued by the Chief Justice under Ext. P3 communication dated 8-2-1988. In the above communication, it was made clear that the Government was requested to extend the period of service of the petitioner at the first instance from 1-7-1986 to 31-12-1987 without proper examination of the power of the Chief Justice under Art.229 of the Constitution. On a proper interpretation of the power given to the Chief Justice under Art.229 of the Constitution read with Rule 35 of the High Court Service Rules and Rule 60(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, it was found that there was no necessity to get orders from the Government to extend the period of service of an employee of the High Court. The petitioner retired from service on 31-12-1988.

4. Since the petitioner completed 10 years of service on 22-1-1988, he was entitled to a higher grade as provided under G.O.(P) No. 515/85/Fin dt.16-9-1985. He submitted Ext. P4 representation before the Registrar of the High Court for taking steps to grant him the higher grade with effect from 23-1-1988. The Registrar, in his turn, recommended the petitioner's request under Ext. P5 letter dt.4-5-1988 to the Government. The petitioner made a further application, Ext. P6, for surrender of leave. The above request was accepted by the High Court under proceedings dt.29-8-1988. A copy of the proceedings is produced as Ext. P7. On receipt of the above communication, the Accountant General again addressed a communication, Ext. P8 dt.30-8-1988 to the State Government seeking a clarification whether the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits such as leave and increments during the period of his extended service from the afternoon of 31-12-1987. The Registrar of the High Court thereupon addressed Ext. P9 letter dt.14-9-1988 to the State Government, explaining the position that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits during the extended period from 1-1-1988 to 31-12-1988, as in the case of the first term of extens