Disposed

Abraham P. v. Union of India

Kerala HC25 May 2016WP(C)/5575/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-extension of Central Scale of pay to Pharmacists at NIT Calicut. Court observed that since the matter was pending with the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the 4th Respondent must take action based on relevant GOI orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; directed 4th Respondent to act based on Ministry of Human Resources Development decisions.

Abraham P. Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5575 of 2011 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ABRAHAM P., S/O.P.V.PATHROSE, PAITTIATTU HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA,

¶11

REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

¶12

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶13

2. THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,

¶14

NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, IMPLEMENTATIONS CELL, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

4. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT R.E.C. (P.O.) KERALA, REP., BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN -675051.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SHRI.LEJI ABRAHAM, CGC

¶18

R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rvs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 5575 of 2011 (V)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT. P1 : TRUE	COPY	OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20/04/2006.
EXT. P2 : TRUE	COPY	OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED	30/1	0/2006.

¶26

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28/05/2005. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION G.I.M.F. NO.50 (1)/IC/97 DATED 30/09/1997.

¶27

EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 18/11/2009. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 09/07/2010. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04/01/2010.

¶28

EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2010.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.5575 of 2011-V

¶36

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner was that, the Central Scale of pay was not extended to the post of Pharmacist in the National Institute of Technology. The petitioner is a Pharmacist appointed w.e.f 29.10.1999 in the Erstwhile Regional Engineering College, Calicut. At the relevant time, the employees in the college were governed by service conditions as applicable to the employees under the State Government. Thereafter, the Regional Engineering Government College was renamed as National Institute of Technology (`NIT' for short) with the status of a deemed University under the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The complaint of the petitioner is that, the scale of pay applicable to the staff under the Government of India is not extended to the post of Pharmacists in the NIT despite the directions of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the Government of India issued on 18.11.2009 and on 9.7.2010, accepting the

¶39

W.P(C) No.5575 of 2011-V 2

¶40

recommendations of the Fast Track Committee.

¶41

The prayer in the Writ Petition was for

¶42

implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P6 under the National Institute of Technology. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P8 by which he was informed that the proposal for restructuring of non faculty position under the NIT was pending with Ministry of Human Resources Development. This information was furnished to him as early as on 10.05.2010.

¶43

Since the matter was stated to be pending consideration before the Ministry of Human Resources Development, it is upto the 4^th respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the decision of the 2^nd respondent and to grant the benefits on the basis of the orders issued thereon and those issued from time to time.

¶44

This Writ Petition is, in the above circumstances, closed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶47

rtr/

Abraham P. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham P. v. Union of India

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

A.Sowbhagyavathy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Smt.Aliyamma Vs Karakurussi Grama Panchayat

Malik Mohammed Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Manager, Model Central School Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Suresh M. Vs State of Kerala

Seetharama Kadamannaya Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner and Anr.