Disposed

K.S.Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013WP(C)/24319/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition regarding the petitioner's delayed placement as Senior Scale Lecturer was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent (State of Kerala) to decide on the placement matter expeditiously within six weeks, considering a report submitted by the Director of Collegiate Education.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the first respondent (State of Kerala) to take a decision on the petitioner's placement and salary disbursement, considering the report submitted by the third respondent, within six

K.S.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24319 of 2011 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.S.SREEKUMAR SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, M.S.M.COLLEGE KAYAMKULAM, RESIDING AT, "SREEVIHAR" H.S.JUNCTION, THAZHAVA (P.O.), KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, M.S.M.COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM-690502.

¶15

6. THE PRINCIPAL,

¶16

M.S.M.COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM-690502.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. R5 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 24319 of 2011 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/11/1983 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE DATED 9/1/88.

¶24

EXHIBI.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE DATED 23/4/2003.

¶25

EXHIBIT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE DATED 4/3/2009.

¶26

EXHIBIT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE PROMOTION/PLACEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR SCALE LECTURER.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.

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

¶33

W.P.(C)NO.24319 OF 2011

¶34

===================== Dated this the 6th day of November 2013.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is presently working as Selection Grade Assistant Professor in M.S.M College, Kayamkulam. He was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the said college as per Ext.P1 dated 13.12.1982 against a leave vacancy and the said appointment was approved as per Ext.P2 with effect from 15.12.1982. Later, he was appointed as such for different spells and all such appointments were duly approved. Later, according to the petitioner appointed against a regular vacancy in October, 1992. I may hasten to add that the specific stand of the respondents is that he was appointed against a permanent vacancy only with effect from 10.11.1995. This writ petition has been filed raising the grievances in the matter of non-approval of his placement in the senior scale and for consequential relief. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated thus:

¶37

It is submitted that the Zonal Officer, Kollam requested to this respondent that the continuous service of the teacher begins only on 10.11.1995. However, the

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)NO.24319 OF 2012

¶40

University has granted the petitioner senior scale placement, prior to that date. Hence to give necessary advice in matter. So this respondent examined the matter in detail and it was found out that the teacher comes under the 4^th revision and as per G.O.(P)209/H.Edn/2006 dated 24.12.1996, the placement granted by the University can be admitted. So a request was sent to the government, vide letter UGC cell 3 -368/2011/Coll.Edn dated 12.01.2012 requesting to give permission for the disbursement salaries. The reply from the Government is yet to be received. Further action will be taken by this respondent, on receipt of reply from the Government.

¶41

It is thus obvious from the statement in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that after examining the issue in detail the 3rd respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner comes under the 4th revision and the terms of the G.O.(P) 209/H.Edn/2006 dated 24.12.1996, the placement granted by the 2nd respondent, University could be admitted. In the said circumstances a report to that effect was sent to the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent as per letter UGC cell 3 -368/2011/Coll.Edn dated 12.01.2012 requesting to give permission for the disbursement of salary. Evidently, the 3rd respondent did not receive any reply from the 1st respondent. It is stated therein that further actions in the matter would be taken immediately on receipt of reply from the Government. It is thus obvious

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C)NO.24319 OF 2012

¶44

that the 3rd respondent has already submitted a report in the matter of placement of the petitioner in the senior scale as per letter dated 12.01.2012 and till date no decision was taken thereon by the 1st respondent. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on the issue taking in to account the report submitted by the 3rd respondent specifically referred in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as extracted above. A decision in the matter taking in to account the said report shall be taken by the 1st respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

R.AV

K.S.Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, St.Thomas U.P.School Vs Sri.S.Shajahan

Manu Vs State of Kerala

Bibitha G. Vs State of Kerala

Geetha.v Vs Niveditha P.Haran

Subin Raj Vs Manager, LIC of India

S.Manoj Vs the Kerala State Sports Council