Remanded

Anitha Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/3148/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to consider the petitioner's claims for revised UGC salary and advance increments on account of promotion approval and M.Phil qualification, based on a University order, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claims under Ext.P9 and pass orders within three months after hearing.

Anitha Jose Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3148 of 2013 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANITHA JOSE, W/O.GEOGI CHERIAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, ASSUMPTION COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT VALAKUZHY HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY WEST, MALLAPPALLLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 562.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR R3 BY ADV.SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 3148 of 2013 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE (ZOOLOGY) DATED 0 UNIVERSITY OF KER	DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN M.PHIL 6.08.1992 ISSUED FROM THE ALA TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE FOR ELIGIBILITY F ISSUED BY THE UNI PETITIONER.	CERTIFICATE IN NATIONAL LEVEL TEST OR LECTURESHIP DATED 03.02.1992 VERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION TO THE
EXHIBIT P3-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 21.02.1995 THE PETITIONER.	THE ORDER NO.AC.B1-2/682/92 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P4-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 22.03.1995 THE PETITIONER.	THE ORDER NO.AC-B1-2/682/92 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P5-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 16.09.2002 THE PETITIONER.	THE ORDER NO.AC.B.V/3/126/2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P6-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 29.03.2003	THE ORDER NO.AC.B.V./1/261/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 18.11.2004 THE PETITIONER.	THE ORDER NO. AC.BV.(4)/267/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P8-	THE TRUE COPY OF W.P[C]NO.1559/201	THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2012 IN 2 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9-	THE TRUE COPY OF U.O.NO.1903/BV/1/ BY THE 3RD RESPON	THE ORDER 2012/ACAD. DATED 20.04.2012 ISSUED DENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 13.11.2006	THE G.O.(MS)NO.148/2006/H.EDN. ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 14.06.2007	THE ORDER NO.11222/C3/2006/H.EDN. ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER AN NO.AC/SAL/TS/1/13 PRINCIPAL, ASSUMP THE 2ND RESPONDEN	THE FIXATION OF PAY SUBMITTED BY D THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE TION COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY TO T.
EXHIBIT P13-	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 21.12.1999	THE G.O.(P)NO.171/99/H.EDN. ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶20

--2--

¶21

--2--

¶22

WP(C).No. 3148 of 2013 (P)

¶23

EXHIBIT P14THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.58/2010/H.EDN. DATED 27.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P15THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.3.2012 IN WPC.36882/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P16THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.597/2013/H.EDN. DATED 3.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.3148 of 2013

¶33

----------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner prays for sanction and disbursal of

¶36

revised UGC salary and arrears in the promoted post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) from 16.09.2002 on the basis of Ext.P9 order of the MG University provisionally approving the promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer Senior Grade with effect from 16.09.2002. Ext.P2 approves fixation of the petitioner's pay as Rs.12,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000- Rs.18300/- with effect from 16.09.2002. The petitioner contends that going by Ext.P14 Government Order, she is eligible for the benefits of fixation and for redesignation as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. It is submitted that by Ext.P12, proposal has been forwarded by the Manager for fixation of the petitioner's pay as well as for grant of two increments consequent to

¶37

W.P.(C) No.3148 of 2013 -2-

¶38

introduction of UGC scheme 1996. The petitioner contends that she had M.Phil qualification at the time of appointment on 16.09.1992 itself and had not been granted the advance increments to which she was entitled as per the UGC schemes. She therefore claims that she is entitled to advance increments available in terms of Ext.P13. The petitioner has raised the claims before the Deputy Director of Eduction and it is submitted that the claims have not been examined and no orders are passed by the Deputy Director, in spite of the clear entitlement of the petitioner.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the University as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶40

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been granted approval in terms of Ext.P9 by the University for her appointment as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 16.09.2002. It is

¶41

W.P.(C) No.3148 of 2013 -3-

¶42

therefore contended that her claim for pay revision benefits in terms of Ext.P4 as well as for grant of advance increments on account of possession of M.Phil at the time of her initial appointment in terms of Ext.P13 is to be examined by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P9 order of approval. The learned counsel appearing for the University also submits that since the University has approved the appointment of the petitioner as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 16.09.2002 by Ext.P9 order, the petitioner's claim has to be examined by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P9. It apparently has not been done by the second respondent till now. No orders rejecting the petitioner's request has also been passed by the second respondent.

¶43

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that

¶44

this writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P9. The petitioner shall prefer a further representation before the second respondent pointing out her claims in terms

¶45

W.P.(C) No.3148 of 2013 -4-

¶46

of Ext.P9 and produce all supporting documents before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such representation is preferred by the petitioner, the second respondent shall consider the claims and pass orders thereon as stated above, with notice to the petitioner and after hearing her. Orders as directed above shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶49

Anitha Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Jose 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmakumaran Nair Vs Kerala Film Development Corpn.& Another

Mini C.Sunny Vs State of Kerala

J.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

K.N. Premodkumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.K.Viswanatha Kurup Vs State

K.J.Pushpa Vs State of Kerala