Point of Law: Court cannot exercise power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the face of the express provisions and in violation of the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The University of Calicut, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar are the appellants challenging the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 9391 of 2021 dated 22-11-2021 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and directing the appellants to disburse the salary for the periods they worked attained the age of superannuation till the end of the academic year.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposing the above appeal are as follows:

The respondents, the writ petitioners were Professors in the University who attained the age of superannuation on 12-11-2012, 1-12-2012, 1-10-2012 and 4-10-2012 respectively. The petitioners continued beyond the age of superannuation namely 60 years till 31-3- 2013, the end of the academic year, which according to them, was permitted by the university. The Calicut University Statute stipulates retirement at the age of 60 and whether a teacher can continue till the end of the academic year is no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal 617 of 2010, categorically held that the teachers cannot continue beyond the age of 60. We have also held so in our judgment in Writ Appeal No. 170/2022 dated 29th March, 2022. Thus, there cannot be any dispute as to the entitlement of the petitioners to continue beyond the age of superannuation or for seeking any benefit on continuance after that.

3. The University had issued Ext. P6 series in the year 2013 and 2014 objecting to the payment of salary and benefits to be granted to the petitioners for the period they worked after they attained the age of superannuation. The Writ Petitioners challenged the said action of the university of the years 2013, 2014 in 2018 by filing W.P. (C) No. 26685/2018 which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge Ext. P4 (a) series of the years 2013 and 2014 and accordingly, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2021.

4. The petitioners contented that they are entitled to the salaries and allowances for the service they rendered after they attained the age of 60 as the University permitted them to do so and that even if they were mistakenly employed, no recovery of the amounts paid for the period they actually worked could be effected by the appellants. The University had opposed such a prayer, as according to them, the teachers are not entitled to continue beyond that and consequently no benefits for the period they continued beyond the age of superannuation could be granted to the petitioners who were fully aware of the statute which mandated superannuation on attaining the age of 60.

5. The learned Single Judge holding that there was the practice and precedent to allow the teachers to continue till the end of the academic year and that the petitioners had not misrepresented for allowing them to discharge their duties till 31-3-2013 and relying on the ratio in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih White Washer, (2015) 4 SCC 334 held that the salary and allowances cannot be withheld and accordingly, set aside the orders impugned and directed payment of the benefits within one month, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6.5%.

6. The University challenges the said judgment mainly contending that going by the University statute the teacher was not entitled to continue after attaining the age of 60 and the issues stand covered by the Writ Appeal 617 of 2010 and Writ Appeal 170 of 2022. The principle in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih White Washer's case is not applicable to the petitioners since they are professors in the University and that the said judgment relates to recovery of employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories and in the contingencies noted in the said judgment. It was also urged that the reliefs claimed ought to have been declined since the orders challenged were issued way back in 2013 and 2014 and the writ petition was filed only in 2018. The continuance of the petitioners after attaining the age of superannuation was at their risk and the Univer