JUDGMENT :

Petitioners 4 in number are senior citizens and renowned professors (retired) of the University of Calicut. All the petitioners were appointed as teachers by the syndicate, the Chief Executive Body of the 1st respondent University and they were relieved from their duties on 31.03.2013. Petitioners had attained the age of 60 years on 12.11.2012, 1.12.2012, 1.10.2012 and 4.10.2012 respectively but as per the practice, were allowed to discharge the duties and rendered the services till 31.03.2013 and have approached this Court challenging series of Ext.P6 whereby part of their salary for the month of March and part/total of DCRG and pension commutation were impounded by the 2nd respondent as per the orders issued by the 3rd respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that no doubt the provisions of the Statute of the University provided the retirement age as 60 but they were allowed to continue and discharge their duties upto 31.03.2013 ie., the end of the academic year. This fact is evident from series of documents Exts.P2, P3 & P5. Vide order dated 31.03.2013 (Ext.P2) Vice Chancellor accorded sanction for relieving from their duty with effect from 31.03.2013. It is the conceded position on record that all the petitioners were allowed to discharge their duties upto 31.03.2013. The Joint Director, Local Fund Audit, Calicut University vide communication dated 30.03.2013 informed the Registrar of the Calicut University that as per Chapter 3 of the Calicut University First Statute, 1977, the retirement age of the university teachers though is 60, but Kerala Service Rules are made applicable and therefore, the teachers should be continued to service upto the end of the month in which they attained the age of 60. Thus it would not be proper to raise the objection at this juncture and pensionary benefits due to them be released.

3. It was next contended that there was no fault on behalf of the petitioners much less any misrepresentation of having continued till the end of the academic year ie., beyond the date of their actual superannuation and thus in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Punjab & Ors. V. Rafiq Masih White Washer [2015 (4) SCC 334], the monitory benefits if paid in excess of their entitlement cannot be recovered or withheld. There was no financial loss to the Government. In the absence of any extra creation of the posts they continued to discharge their duty on the existing substantive posts. All the petitioners were employed in fullfledged University service and discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the superiors.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent oppose the aforementioned prayer by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.617/2010 dated 02.09.2015 whereby referring to the Rules of 60(c) of Part-I of the Kerala Service Rules vis-à-vis the provisions of the Statute of the University it was held that the provisions of the statute would be binding and not of the KSR as it pertains to retirement age of 55 and at the best employee could be retired at the end of the year instead of achieving the date of retirement before the end of the month. Petitioners overspent in the department and therefore, the objection raised by the impugned decision is perfectly justified and do not call for any interference. The provisions of Kerala Service Rules is only applicable in the matter of payment of terminal benefits to the teachers of the University. Even on plain and simple reading of Rule 60(c) of Part-I of Kerala Service Rules and statute 9 relating to the applicability of the Kerala Service Rules is “subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes”. Thus the provisions of the statute would override the provision of Rule 60(c) of Kerala Service Rules and urge this court for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. The documents ann