PENSION SHALL BE DETERMINED ON RULES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT: SUPREME COURT In this case, the appellant was a lecturer at the School of Legal Studies of Cochin University of Science and Technology since 1984. Upon his retirement the registrar had declined his request thus the appellant approached the Chancellor of the University contending that the Registrar had rejected his request for reckoning his tenure of practice at the Bar for the purpose of determining his superannuation pension, without following the relevant rules in their proper perspective. The appellant received no response to his representation, he preferred a writ before the Kerala High Court on the same ground. The High Court dismissed the writ on the ground that it was open to the Government to unilaterally alter the service conditions of employees during their service. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant as well as Dr. P Leela Krishnan were similarly situated and both were appointed as teaching faculty after practicing as advocates. Therefore, the Court found no valid ground to sustain the application of the proviso in relation to the appellant, denying the benefit of Rule 25(a) of Kerala Service Rules, when the same was not applied in the case of Dr. P. Leela Krishnan, thereby allowing the benefit of Rule 25(a) of KSR. With a team of Law experts, Reddy & amp; Reddy Law Firm has extensive experience and involvement in legal disputes. We are regularly involved in representation before courts and tribunals in India.