Allowed

Rajkumar K.K. v. Director of Collegiate Education,Tvm.

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/25171/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders rejecting a nominal pay claim for a lecturer. The court held that since the appointment was UGC-approved and exemption granted, respondent authorities must disburse salary arrears accrued between 1997 and 2000.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P4 and P5 quashed; Fourth respondent to forward salary bill; Respondents 1 and 2 to disburse arrears within four months.

Rajkumar K.K. Vs Director of Collegiate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25171 of 2007 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.K.RAJKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RARAN K.K., "DEVANGANAM", P.O.MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VATAKARA,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, N.A.M. COLLEGE, KALLIKKANDY).

¶8

BY ADV.SMT.P.K.PRIYA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

3. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGAT PARAMBA P.O., REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

¶13

4. THE PRINCIPAL, N.A.M.COLLEGE, KALLIKANDY, THUVAKKUNNU, KANNUR-670693.

¶14

*ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

*ADDL.R5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

¶16

BAHADUR SHA SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI – 2.

¶17

*ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.08.2007 IN IA NO.11612/07.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN, SC SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶19

R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 25171 of 2007 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, NAM COLLEGE, KALLIKKANDY DATED 3-10-1997.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-9-2002.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE MANAGER RELIEVING THE PETITIONER FROM SEVICE OF COLLEGE DATED 2-1-2003.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.7.2007 TO THE PRINCIPAL NAM COLLEGE, KALLIKANDY.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO SRI. ASHRAF ALI T.P.O. DATED 11-1-2002.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO SRI.SHAMEEM KAPPAN DATED 28-8-2002.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO SRI. PRIYESH K.G. DATED 11-1-2002.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO SRI. DILIP M.R. DATED 11-12-2001.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO SRI. SHEIJI MATHEW DATED 14-12-2001.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE MINTUES OF THE MEETING OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 8-7-2011.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶28

EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF AGREEMENT.

¶29

EXT.R5(a) COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5-4/2005 U.1(a) DATED 30-3-2010.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶34

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 25171 of 2007

¶35

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th May, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P4 and P5 issued by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner seeks direction to disburse salary arrears in the post of Lecturer for the period from October,1997 to May, 2000.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned standing counsel for the Kannur University and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶39

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 6.10.1997. The appointment was initially approved provisionally subject to his passing the UGC NET qualification. Thereafter he was provisionally exempted from passing the NET. His appointment was also duly approved by the University, it is submitted. He resigned from service and was relieved from the College. However, the arrear bill submitted by the fourth respondent for the period from October, 1997 to May, 2000 in respect of the petitioner is not honoured by respondents 1 and 2. This is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶40

¶41

WP(C).25171/07

¶42

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary and all allowances in view of the fact that the appointment was duly approved by the University. It is further submitted that for the period in question, the petitioner was entitled to exemption from acquiring NET qualification and therefore no amount can be withheld on the ground that he did not possess the said qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.940 of 2007 to contend that once the appointment is approved by the University, respondents 1 and 2 are duty bound to make payments, since the University is the authority to accord approval in accordance with law. The leaned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in University Grants Commission v. Rajesh [2008(4) KLT 223] to say that once exemption is granted to the University by the UGC, candidates appointed to teaching posts do not have to be granted individual exemptions and the orders of exemption from acquiring UGC qualification will enure to the benefit of the teachers appointed by the individual managements.

¶43

In the above circumstances, Exhibits P4 and P5 orders rejecting the request made by the fourth respondent for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from October, 1997

¶44

¶45

WP(C).25171/07

¶46

to May, 2000 shall stand quashed. The fourth respondent is directed to forward the salary bill in respect of the petitioner for the said period immediately. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take up the arrear bill to be forwarded by the fourth respondent and to disburse the arrears due to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶49

vgs26/5

Rajkumar K.K. v. Director of Collegiate Education,Tvm.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar K.K. v. Director of Collegiate Education,Tvm.

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

C.Vasantha Shenoy Vs the Kasaragod Municipality, Rep. by Its

Kamalamma Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sobhana Chandran Vs State Information Commission

Jijo Jose Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.H.Mumthaz Vs Kerala Water Authority