Allowed

Dr.Rekha U.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2014WP(C)/6022/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Government's refusal to extend deputation benefits to tutors of private aided Homoeopathic colleges who completed P.G. studies. Finding the classification arbitrary and noting benefits granted to similarly situated persons, the Court ordered reconsideration within three months. Writ petitions allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondents ordered to reconsider matter within three months and pass appropriate orders.

Dr.Rekha U.S. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/10TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 6022 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR.REKHA U.S., W/O.K.B JEEVANANDAN MADAVI MANDIR, AYYAPPANKAVU KOCHI - 682 018.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶11

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001.

¶13

3. THE PRINCIPAL

¶14

DR.PADIAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 312.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R3 BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 18123/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 6022 of 2013 (C)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT. P1:-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.12.1999 ISSUED BY THE DR.PADIAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE.
EXT. P2:-	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DTD. 5/7/1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT. P3:-	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DTD 3/2/2001 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT. P4:-	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE DEGREE COURSE IN HOMOEOPATHY FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000.
EXT.P5:-	COPY OF THE SELECTION MEMO DATED 9.4.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR P.G. COURSE IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM.
EXT. P6:-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/4/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7:-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/4/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P8:-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 20/1/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:-	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION 6.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD REPONDENT.
EXT.P10:-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11:-	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.8.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P12:-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P13:-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P14:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.5.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P15:-	TRUE COPY OF G.O. DTD. 29/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

(Contd...)

¶24

WP(C).No. 6022 of 2013 (C)

¶25

EXT. P16:TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD .8/3/2012 IN WPC NO 28460/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

EXT. P17:TRUE COPY OF GO.(RT) NO. 128/2013/H & FWD DTD. 10/1/2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶27

EXT. P18:COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.4.2012 IN WP(C) NO. 38093/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶28

EXT. P19:COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 1460/2014/H & FWD DATED 8.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

¶32

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C). Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Ext.P17 order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the first

¶39

respondent/Government, denying the claim for granting deputation benefits to the teachers like the petitioners who had taken leave for undergoing their P.G studies in furtherance to

¶40

Ext.P3 Scheme, is under challenge in both these writ petitions.

¶41

For convenience of reference, pleadings and proceedings

¶42

are referred to as given in W.P.(C). No. 6022 of 2013. The petitioners in both these cases joined the third respondent College as Tutors. The Government introduced Ext.P2 Scheme dated 5.7.1994, whereby provision was incorporated to enable Tutors in the Government Colleges to go for higher studies and to acquire higher qualifications, enabling them to have deputation benefits which includes salary, allowance, continuity in service etc. This of course was a matter of policy, for ensuring and enhancing the quality of teaching being imparted from the institutions belonging to the Government and to benefit the student community at large.

¶43

W.P.C. Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013 -2-

¶44

Later, the Government thought it fit to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the private aided Colleges in the 'Ayurveda' segment as well, vide Ext.P3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner in the first case had gone for P.G studies in the year 2001, whereas the petitioner in the other case had gone for P.G studies in the year 1999. Both of them have completed their studies, acquired their P.G Degrees and have rejoined duty. It

¶45

was thereafter, that they moved the Government seeking to extend the benefit flowing from Ext.P3, as they were similarly situated like the Tutors who were working in the 'Ayurveda' sector.

¶46

The claim put forth in this regard was rejected by the Government as per Exts. P12 and P13 proceedings, which were sought to be challenged by filing W.P.(C). No. 28460 of 2006. In the meanwhile, some other similarly situated persons had approached this Court by filing writ petitions seeking for similar benefits and the Government was directed to consider the claim in this regard. Pursuant to this, the concerned Tutors working in the 'Athurasramam N.S.S Homeopathic Medical College', Kurichy (which is also a Medical College in the private aided sector) were

¶47

W.P.C. Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013 -3-

¶48

given the benefit of Ext.P3 as per Ext.P15 G.O dated 29.6.2011. This was brought to the notice of this Court when W.P.(C). No. 28460 of 2006 was finally heard on 8.3.2012; which led to Ext.P16 judgment, whereby Exts. P12 and P13 were set aside and the Government was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P15 G.O. Dated 29.6.2011. It was thereafter, that Ext.P17 came to be passed whereby the claim was rejected again, referring to the financial stringency of the Government, which in turn is under challenge in these writ petitions.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶50

counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶51

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no merit or basis with regard to the alleged financial stringency for rejecting the claim. The only difficulty expressed from the part of the 1^st respondent as revealed from paragraph 4 and 8 of the counter affidavit is that, if the claim is to be entertained, it would result in financial constraints. A reference is made in this regard to the specific pleadings in the proceedings,

¶52

W.P.C. Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013 -4-

¶53

particularly, paragraph '5' of the reply affidavit, to the effect that the petitioners had volunteered to come to the rescue of the Government by submitting an 'undertaking' to the effect that, they did not want any financial benefits flowing from the Scheme. There concern was only with regard to the 'continuity of service'; more so when, such benefits have been extended to other similarly situated persons, as could be seen from Ext.P15.

¶54

Nothing has been mentioned in Ext.P17 with regard to the 'undertaking' given by the petitioners in this regard. However, when the 1^st respondent chose to file a counter affidavit before this Court, reference is made to this aspect as well, in paragraph '5'; wherein they sought to justify the same, stating that even if an 'undertaking' was there, granting of benefit to the petitioners, will open a Pandora's box and hence the claim was rejected.

¶55

Another important aspect to be noted is that, in spite of the stand that has been followed by the Government to save the financial implication, the matter was considered with regard to the claim of some other persons who had approached this Court earlier by filing the concerned writ petitions. That was the case of

¶56

W.P.C. Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013 -5-

¶57

persons who joined the service years after the petitioners joined the service and completed the P.G. Course years after exercise by the petitioners. After considering the same, the deputation benefits and such other benefits flowing from Ext.P3 were ordered to be extended to the said persons, confirming the benefits to the 2003-2008 batch, however without offering an explanation as to how and why such selection has been made for

¶58

extending the benefit. A copy of the said order has been produced by the petitioners as Ext.P19 along with I.A No. 6798/2014.

¶59

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the Government have not succeeded in offering any reasonable classification to draw a distinction between the petitioners and those who have already been granted the benefits as per Exts. P15 and P19. This is more so, in view of the fact that the petitioners herein have already given an 'undertaking' as asserted in the reply affidavit, stating that they do not want any financial benefit flowing from Ext.P3 and that their look out is only with regard to the continuity in service. If the persons who joined the service as in the institution like the third respondent herein,

¶60

W.P.C. Nos. 6022 & 18123 of 2013 -6-

¶61

much later to the date of joining of the petitioners and the date of completion of their P.G. Studies have been given the benefit, there cannot be any reason to deny the same for persons like the petitioners herein, if the facts and figures given from their side in this regard are true and correct.

¶62

In the said circumstances, this Court does not require any second thought to hold that the impugned orders (Ext.P17 in W.P.(C). No. 6022/13 and Ext.P13 in W.P.(C). No. 18123/13) are clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. Both the said orders are set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the above observations and also with reference to Exts. P15 and P19 and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶64

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶65

kp/-

Dr.Rekha U.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rekha U.S. v. State of Kerala

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

K. Kunjumon Vs Shri. K. Ramachandan

Mujeeb C.H Vs v.Somasundaran

Dr.K.Jayaraj Vs K.M.Abraham

K.K.Biju Vs P.Shajahan

R. Dakshayani (Retd. Principal) Vs the Administrator

M. Abdul Jabbar Vs the Kerala Water Authority