Allowed

Rajesh R.Kodiparambil and Ors. v. the State of Kerala and Ors.

Kerala HC16 Mar 2017WP(C)/24056/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the denial of non-cadre promotion benefits to physical instructors in private polytechnic colleges. The Court held that since such benefits were granted to lecturers in aided polytechnic colleges and the post of Lecturer in Physical Education is substantial in existence, petitioners are entitled to the same benefits. The impugned order was quash

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; benefit granted to Lecturers in private polytechnic colleges by Ext.P15 extended to petitioners; monetary benefits to be disbursed within four months.

Rajesh R.Kodiparambil and Ors. Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24056 of 2010 (F) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. RAJESH R.KODIPARAMBIL, PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR (H.G.), N.S.S. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PANDALAM. 2. SYED MOHAMMED SADIQUE KOYA THANGAL, PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR, (H.G.) S.S.M. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, TIRUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PANDALAM-689 501. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, S.S.M. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101.

¶11

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER T.N. MANOJ

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 24056 of 2010 (F)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.3.2009 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PROMOTION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶18

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO,D.P.5/14015/05 DATED 28.04.2005

¶19

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.02.2006 P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1/10916/04 COLL.EDN. DATED 26.07.2004

¶20

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2/B1/2006/RDTEC DATED 14.03.2006

¶21

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2/695/2006 DATED 20.12.2006 P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2007 P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DP.5/32779/09 DATED 09.07.2010

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.24056 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order and seeking directions to respondents 1 to 3 to sanction non-cadre post of lecturers to the petitioners.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶33

Petitioners are persons appointed as Physical Instructors in private polytechnics in the State. The 1^st petitioner claims that he was appointed in the retirement vacancy of one Anandan Pillai who retired from service as Professor Grade I (non-cadre). The 2^nd petitioner was appointed on 01.12.1990. At the time of appointment of petitioners, the scheme of non-cadre promotion to the post of lecturers and to higher posts was prevalent in private polytechnic colleges. However, after the implementation of the UGC scheme), the benefit of non-cadre promotion as

¶34

W.P.(C) No.24056/2010 2

¶35

Lecturer (Physical Education) which was granted to Physical Instructors working in Arts and Science Colleges was not extended to employees of private polytechnic colleges. Though the petitioners were initially granted the scale of pay of Rs.667510550 on completion of ten years of service, the said benefit was also sought to be recalled on the ground that there is no post of Lecturer in Physical Education available in the polytechnic colleges where the petitioners were working. The benefit of noncadre promotions were also denied to the petitioners on the ground that after the implementation of the UGC scheme, the practice of granting non-cadre promotion had ceased to exist and that the petitioners would not be entitled to such benefit.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the Government Orders issued from time to time, even after the implementation of the UGC scheme to contend that noncadre promotions continued to be operative as far as employees of the Arts and Science Colleges were concerned. Learned counsel would also place reliance on Ext.P15 Government Order dated 05.08.2015 to contend that non-engineering lecturers in aided polytechnic colleges have been allowed to continue in the revised scale with benefits of non-cadre promotion as Professor

¶37

W.P.(C) No.24056/2010 3

¶38

Grade II and Professor Grade I. The petitioners who are fully qualified hands contend that these benefits should be made available to them also.

¶39

On considering the contentions advanced by the petitioners as well as the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, it is clear that the only distinction as far as petitioners are concerned as pleaded by the contesting respondents is to the effect that the petitioners were appointed as Physical Instructors in private polytechnic colleges and the post of Lecturers in Physical Education were not available in such colleges.

¶40

However, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the post of Lecturer in Physical Education was very much a post in existence and the said fact is clear on a perusal of the Special Rules for the Kerala Collegiate Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 1987. The said Rules as amended on 28.10.1967 provided for a post of Lecturer in Physical Education in the Collegiate Education Service. It is clear from a perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners that employees of Government and aided polytechnics including lecturers have been granted the benefit of non-cadre promotions which were being

¶41

W.P.(C) No.24056/2010

¶42

¶43

enjoyed by them prior to the introduction of the UGC scheme as late as in the year 2015. The petitioners, who are Physical Instructors in private polytechnic colleges, have been denied the benefit of non-cadre promotion on the ground that the post of Lecturer in Physical Education was not available in the colleges where they were employed. I do not see any justification for such a stand taken by the respondents. The petitioners are post graduates with M.Phil in the concerned subject. They have all the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Physical Education. The post of Lecturer in Physical Education is in existence at least in Government polytechnics going by the Special Rules.

¶44

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the denial of non-cadre promotion to the petitioners on the ground that the colleges where they were appointed did not have the post, cannot be countenanced. This is more so in view of the fact that the benefit of non-cadre promotions have been extended to teaching staff of private polytechnic colleges even going by Ext.P15 order dated 05.08.2015. The petitioners who are substantially similarly situated as the beneficiaries of the said order are also entitled for the said benefit.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.24056/2010

¶46

¶47

Therefore, I hold that the petitioners who are Physical Instructors in private polytechnic colleges are also entitled to the benefit of non-cadre promotions as has been granted to Lecturers in private polytechnic colleges by Ext.P15 order. This is more so in view of the fact that the persons appointed in the colleges where the petitioners are working were also entitled to the said benefit before the introduction of the UGC scheme.

¶48

This writ petition is ordered quashing Ext.P10 order and directing that the benefit granted to Lecturers in private polytechnic colleges by Ext.P15 shall be extended to the petitioners as well. Monetary benefits due on account of the above declaration shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶51

smp

Rajesh R.Kodiparambil and Ors. v. the State of Kerala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh R.Kodiparambil and Ors. v. the State of Kerala and Ors.

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

Ajayakumar.v Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

K.v.Arun Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

C.K.John Valsalam Vs Fr.Jacob

K.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Rajan Vs the District Manager