Pay revision during extended service after superannuation cannot be denied where rules exclude only increment and promotion.

Teachers allowed to continue beyond superannuation under the Kerala Education Rules were held entitled to pay revision during the extended period, because the service rules expressly denied only increment and promotion. The commentary treats "increment" as a distinct concept from revision of pay scale and states that a plain rule cannot be expanded by invoking casus omissus to add a restriction that is not expressed. Pay revision could not, therefore, be excluded merely because the teacher had crossed the retirement date, and the State's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether teachers who continued in service beyond the date of superannuation under Rule 62 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 were entitled to the benefit of pay revision that came into force during the extended period of service.

Analysis: The relevant rules permitted teachers attaining the age of retirement during an academic year to continue till the close of the academic year, but Rule 60(c) of the Kerala Service Rules expressly denied them the benefits of increment and promotion during the period beyond the date of superannuation. The expression "increment" was held to have a definite meaning in service law and to be conceptually different from revision of pay scale. The provision was plain and unambiguous, and there was no basis to read pay revision into it on the theory of casus omissus. Since pay revision is distinct from annual increment, the omission to mention pay revision could not be supplied by interpretation.

Conclusion: The teachers were entitled to the benefit of pay revision and the State's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot supply a casus omissus or read into a plain service-rule provision a restriction on pay revision when the rule expressly excludes only increment and promotion during continued service beyond superannuation.

---