Employees under the National Pension System are entitled to service continuation up to the age of 60, with appropriate authority mandated to consider representations related to service disputes.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Specialist Teacher belonging to the Craft Group, i.e., Sewing Teacher in St.Thomas High School, Thankamony under the 7th respondent Corporate Educational Agency, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to permit her to rejoin duty as Specialist Teacher in the Parent School forthwith. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs including a declaration that she is entitled to be treated as in continuous service without being retired on 30.04.2015, with all attendant service benefits.

2. On 29.05.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 3 to 6. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2, 7 and 8.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 to 6. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 2, 7 and

8.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the State Government had implemented National Pension System (NPS) for the State employees, who are appointed on or after 01.04.2013 vide G.O(P)No.20/2013/Fin dated 07.01.2013, for whom the rules in Part III KSR would have been applicable otherwise. Such employees became entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, by virtue of the National Pension Scheme. Since the petitioner was appointed as Sewing Teacher with effect from 03.06.2013, she became entitled to the benefit of continuance in service up to the age of 60 years, i.e., up to 30.04.2019. The petitioner has already made Ext.P3 representation dated 21.03.2018 before the 6th respondent Director of Public Instructions, which is pending consideration. The Corporate Manager has already appointed the 8th respondent as Specialist Teacher (wrongly described in the cause title to this writ petition as Special Teacher) in the vacancy that occurred on the retirement of the petitioner.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P3 representation is received in the office of the 6th respondent Director of Public Instructions and pending consideration, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and others within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

In such circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 6th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 representation, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also to the Principal of the school in question (wrongly described in the cause title to this writ petition as Manager), the 7th respondent Corporate Manager and the 8th respondent Teacher and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and it is for the petitioner to raise all legal and factual contentions before the 6th respondent at appropriate stage.