Allowed

K.Mohanan v. the Chancellor, University of Clt.

Kerala HC16 Dec 2008WP(C)/8583/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the University to propose a redesignation to the Chancellor to amend Ordinances, mandating future consultation. Pending this decision, the petitioner is allowed to continue in service without salary or benefits until age 55, with terminal benefits settled based on retirement at 55 if the claim is denied.

What did the court decide?

Directed University to propose redesignation to Chancellor; petitioner allowed to continue service without salary/benefits pending final decision; terminal benefits to be settled on 55-year retirement

K.Mohanan Vs the Chancellor, University of Clt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 8583 of 2008(V) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ------------------

¶7

K.MOHANAN TECHNICIAN, SCHOOL OF DRAMA, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, DR. JOHN MATHAI CENTRE, ARANATTUKKARA PO THRISSUR 680 618.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------

¶10

1. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 003.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶12

3. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESNTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 635.

¶13

ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANIFOR R2

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WPC NO.8583/08

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF STUDIES.

¶19

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL MEETINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY.

¶20

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the JUDGMENT INOP NO.2778/98-3 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.16.2.1998.

¶21

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMNET IN OP NO.20870/99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.939/06.

¶23

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.P5.

¶24

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.P5.

¶25

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF the JUDGMNET DT 29.9.06 CLOSED CONTMEPT CASE © NO.939/06.

¶26

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.31873/B1/05/H.EDN.DT 7.6.06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A2/2690/2005 DT 9.2.2007 OF THE REGISTRAR.

¶28

//TRUE COPY//

¶29

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 8583 OF 2008 (V)

¶31

====================

¶32

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2008

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioner is a Technician working in the School of Drama under the respondent University. According to him, the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner deserves his categorisation among the teaching posts and he took up the matter before the University. That resulted in Ext.P1, a decision taken by the Board of Studies on 9/5/89. By Ext.P1, the Board of Studies recommended to redesignate Technician as Instructor in the teaching category of employees. Referring to Ext.P3, the counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 was accepted by the Academic Council of the University in their meetings held on 30/9/89 and 15/3/90. Implementation of Exts. P1 and 2 were unduly delayed and therefore petitioner and another person filed OP 2778/98 before this Court. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the University to consider the representations made by the petitioners in Ext.P3 judgment in the light of Exts. P1 and P2 decisions taken by the Board of Studies and Academic Council of the University.

¶35

Petitioner submits that though belatedly, a decision was taken

¶36

WPC 8583/08

¶37

:2 :

¶38

by the Syndicate of the University on 20/1/1999 to change the designation of Technicians into Technician cum Instructor non teaching. As the decision of the Syndicate made only cosmetic changes to the designation of the post held by the petitioner, without entitling him to continue in service till 60 years like others in the teaching jobs, petitioner was aggrieved by the said decision. Therefore, he filed OP No.20870/99 against the aforesaid decision. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the University to pass fresh orders in the matter, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 2174/99.

¶39

There was no development in this matter and therefore complaining that Ext.P4 judgment has been disobeyed, petitioner filed COC No.939/06. In the contempt matter, University filed Ext.P5 affidavit, producing Exts. P6 and P7 Minutes of the Syndicate Meeting and letter dated 31/10/2005 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education. By these documents, the Syndicate had resolved to recommend for redesignation of the post of Technician as Instructor in the teaching category and approval of the Government for such redesignation was sought for. Recording the developments as above, the Contempt of Court

¶40

WPC 8583/08

¶41

:3 :

¶42

Case was closed by Ext.P8.

¶43

In pursuance to Ext.P7, the Government considered the matter and by Ext.P9, sought clarification from the University as to why the redesignation as recommended by Ext.P7 was not admissible. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed, complaining that further action in pursuance to Ext.P9 was getting delayed.

¶44

University and the Government have filed separate counter

¶45

affidavits. The thrust of the averments in para 4 to 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the University is that although on its part, it has already taken a decision to redesignate Technician in the School of Drama as Instructor in the teaching category, concurrence of the Government is awaited. The Government on its part had stated in para 3 and 4 of its affidavit that redesignation of teacher and non teaching staff require amendment of the Ordinance and that in order to amend the same, concurrence of the Government is required as per Section 2(g) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 and that assent of the Chancellor is required. It is stated that in this case, redesignation also involves additional financial commitment and in such a case, University should consult the Government. It is also stated that the proposal for amendment should be

¶46

WPC 8583/08

¶47

:4 :

¶48

sent through Chancellor and it is the Chancellor who seeks the view of the Government. The counter affidavit also states that in this case, the University has forwarded the proposal to the Government, which is not the correct procedure. Elsewhere in the affidavit it is also stated that on receipt of the proposal from the University, report from the University has been sought for and that the same is awaited.

¶49

From the affidavits filed by the University and the Government, it would appear that the procedure adopted by the University is not correct. As highlighted in the affidavit filed by the Government, instead of making the proposal directly to the Government, the University ought to have made proposal to the Chancellor and it is for the Chancellor to seek the views of the Government. Admittedly, this procedure has not been complied with by the University so far. Therefore, it is directed that the University shall make necessary proposal for redesignation of the Technician, School of Drama as Instructor in the teaching category, to the Chancellor, for effecting necessary amendment to the Ordinances. This the University shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

As can be seen from the facts of this case, right from atleast

¶51

WPC 8583/08

¶52

:5 :

¶53

1989, the petitioner has been fighting for the redesignation so that he can continue till attaining 60 years, the University has taken a decision accepting his claim and what is required is the amendment of the Ordinance, for which necessary steps will have to be taken by the University. Since the petitioner has been making his endeavors from 1989 and as he is attaining the age of 55 years on 31/12/2008, I direct that until the Chancellor takes a decision on the proposal to be made by the University as directed above, the petitioner will be permitted to continue in service, but however without any salary or other monetary benefits. A final decision on his claim for continuance beyond 55 years will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Chancellor on the proposal, and if the decision ultimately taken is against him, the terminal benefits due to the petitioner will be settled as if he has retired on completion of 55 years.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

K.Mohanan v. the Chancellor, University of Clt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohanan v. the Chancellor, University of Clt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs G.N.Namboothiri

The Manager S.N.Trust Vs Dr.Unnikrishnan & Others

Savitha P. Vs State of Kerala

M.a,Abdul Haris Vs Mathew Joseph

Kunnummel Block Panchayath Vs M.a.Abdul Haris

P.G.Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala