In Brief
A university lecturer appointed in 1984 sought to include his eight years of prior practice as an advocate in calculating his superannuation pension under Rule 25(a) of the Kerala Service Rules. The university denied this, citing a proviso added to the rule in 1985. The Supreme Court held that while retirement rules apply as they exist at retirement, an employer cannot selectively apply rules to discriminate between similarly situated employees. Since another law professor in identical circumstances received the pension benefit, the Court found the university's denial arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The appeal was allowed and the university was directed to pay the shortfall pension with interest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.