IMPORTANT POINTS
The question was whether the appellant is entitled to pension in Indian rupees or under the erstwhile Hyderabad State rupees. As on the date of retirement of the appellant, the rule provided for the pension to be reckoned in Indian rupees. Later to his retirement and while the proceedings were pending before Court, there was an amendment made, which found the reference to Indian Rupee to be a mistake and brought in an amendment. The Court, however, found that, the rule applicable in the matter of determination of pension is that existing at the time of retirement.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. We placed these matters together for reason of a common question arising in both the appeals; though the facts differ. The common questions for consideration are, (i) Whether the right to reckon prior service or experience, as qualifying service for pension, accrues at the time of appointment or superannuation? (ii) Whether; when there is a rule permitting reckoning of such service or experience at the time of appointment; it can be altered before retirement?

2. In Writ Appeal No.988 of 2012, the appellant, who was a member of the Bar, was appointed to the School of Legal Studies, Cochin University. At the time of his appointment, as per Rule 25(a) Part III, KSR, experience at the Bar could be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of determining pension. This was only subject to the condition that this benefit was available only to a person who is recruited after the age of 25 years, who could add as many years by which he exceeds 25 years of age, but not exceeding the actual years of practice at the Bar and subject to a maximum of ten years. While the appellant was in service, a proviso was added in the following manner.

Provided that the benefit under this sub-rule shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practising at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar.

3. The petitioner, who had eight years practice at the Bar, was recruited to the School of Legal Studies, Cochin University. The specific contention taken up by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that, the appointment to the post of a Teacher in the Cochin University did not require Bar experience and hence, the proviso directly hits the appellant and dis-entitles his pension to be determined, reckoning his experience at the Bar as qualifying service. The learned Single Judge found, on established principles, that it is perfectly open to the Government to unilaterally alter the service conditions of employees during their service and therefore, what is applicable is the rule prevailing as on the date of retirement and not as on the date of entering service.

4. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.904 of 2018, who is working as an Assistant Professor in an aided college, sought for a direction to the respondents to reckon the service rendered by her in an aided school relying on Rule 14 E of Chapter III of KER. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, finding that, the appellant is still in service and the writ petition was premature. The appellant could claim pension only as per the existing rule at the time of retirement was the finding.

5. Considering the importance of the question involved, we appointed Adv. Navaneeth Krishnan as Amicus Curiae.

6. The learned counsel, Sri.Mahesh Menon R., appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.988 of 2012 would contend that, all the Universities require Bar experience for a teaching post in the law faculty of the University. Cochin University alone does not require such experience. It is also contended that, at the time of his appointment to the law faculty of the University, the Rule provided for reckoning the Bar experience as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The amendment, being made retrospectively from 1985 does not affect the vested rights of the appellant who was appointed on 07.09.1984.

7. Learned counsel would rely on the decision in Salabuddin Mohammed Yunus v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1905(2)], to contend that an amendment cannot be retrospective, when it interferes with the vested rights of an individual. Pension has been held to be a vested right of an employee, and not a largesse, which he is entitled to as on the date of his appointment. The qualifying service ought to be reckoned, as the rule exists on the date of appointment, since this is a significant factor regulating the decision of a successful candidate in joining a service. Learned counsel also relied on the d