Allowed

Dr.Vijayalekshmi.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2017WP(C)/9371/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by an associate professor seeking grant of two advance increments in her selection grade. The Court, relying on prior precedent, directed the respondents to fix her pay with said increments effective from her promotion date.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P9 set aside; pay fixed at Rs. 12,840/- with effect from 13.8.1998 with two advance increments; consequential benefits to be paid within four months.

Dr.Vijayalekshmi.P Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/3RD CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9371 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR.VIJAYALEKSHMI P., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001.

¶11

2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.

¶12

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030.

¶13

4. PRINCIPAL, D.B.COLLEGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686605.

¶14

5. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PIN 686001.

¶15

R1-R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 9371 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.8/81 OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA APPROVING APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.8.8.95 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY ANDHRA UNIVERSITY.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.3.04 PETITIONER BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES (1,2,8,9,10,11) G.O.(P) NO.171/99/H.EDN.DT.21/12/99.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) 148/06 DT.13/11/06. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.15/11/07 OF 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.19.7.06 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DT.17/12/12 SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.15/2/13 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P10:TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DT.4/3/13 SUBMITTED TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P10A:TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.4.3.13 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶36

W.P(C).No. 9371 of 2013

¶37

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th March, 2017

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the 4^th respondent College with effect from 14.11.1980 and the appointment was duly approved. The petitioner was placed in the Senior Scale Lecturer on 13.8.1988 and in the Selection Grade with effect from 13.8.1998. It is submitted that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D on 8.8.1995. Since the petitioner had not availed the benefit of two advance increments, he had sought for grant of advance increments in the selection grade. Though this proposal was forwarded by the 4^th respondent, the same was not granted to the petitioner. By Exhibit P6, the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.12,000/- in the higher scale of Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 13.8.1998 without grant of the two advance increments. It appears that the reason for the fixation of pay was the stand taken by the official respondents that the advance increments were to be granted in the senior scale and not in the selection grade. If the increment is granted in the senior scale, the petitioner would

¶40

WP(C).9371/13 2

¶41

not get any benefit, since she had already reached the maximum of the scale available to her.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University.

¶43

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the question raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision reported in Serji (Dr.) v. Deputy Director and others [ILR 2012(3) Ker.165]. In the above case, the petitioner had been granted fixation in the senior scale with effect from 18.11.1993 and in the selection grade from 27.7.1998 and he had acquired Ph.D on 22.5.1996. This Court found that the advance increments are liable to be granted in the scale of pay applicable to selection grade, since by granting advance increments in the lower scale, the benefit itself would be denied to the parties concerned. The clarificatory order issued by the Government was, therefore, quashed and it was directed that the petitioner's eligibility for grant of advance increments was liable to be re-examined and orders passed.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the benefit of grant of advance increments in the concerned

¶45

¶46

WP(C).9371/13

¶47

grade had been rightly exercised by the Deputy Director in identical cases in Exhibit P7. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner is also entitled to get her salary fixed at Rs.12,840/with effect from 13.8.1998 taking into account the two advance increments in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturers.

¶48

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, contending that by G.O(P).No.171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999, it had been clarified that the fixation is to be done in the lower scale of pay, if the incumbent opts for the benefit of advance increments as per clause 6(18) of the order. It is further stated that the rules in the clarificatory G.O(P). No.44/2001/H.Edn. dated 29.3.2001 does not permit the grant of advance increments in the selection grade. The learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent University would submit that the petitioner's case is similar to the one considered in Serji's case (supra) and that the petitioner would be entitled to fixation of pay as has been done in Exhibit P7 order.

¶49

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D on 8.8.1995. She had not

¶50

¶51

WP(C).9371/13

¶52

received the benefit of advance increments earlier. She would, therefore, be entitled to advance increments in terms of Exhibit P4 Government order. It is clear from Exhibit P6 that the proposal had been sent by the 4^th respondent for payment of the two advance increments in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturer. However, this benefit has not been granted to the petitioner and her pay was fixed only at Rs.12,000/- with effect from 30.8.1998. In view of the clear findings contained in the judgment in Serji's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the contentions raised in the counter affidavit to the effect that the clarificatory orders had provided for grant of advance increments only in the lower scale of pay cannot be accepted. It is clear that similarly situated person had been given the benefit of advance increments in the selection grade as well.

¶53

In the result, Exhibit P9 is set aside. It is directed that the fixation of the petitioner's pay as per Exhibit P6 is to be modified by granting her two advance increments in the scale of pay applicable to the Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from the date of getting promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer, i.e., 13.8.1998. The petitioner's pay shall be fixed taking into

¶54

¶55

WP(C).9371/13

¶56

account the advance increments also at Rs.12,840/- with effect from 13.8.1998. The consequential monetary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

vgs27/3

Dr.Vijayalekshmi.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vijayalekshmi.P 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.P.Kuttai Vs State of Kerala

Gladstone George Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Shency K.Paul Vs the Director of Public Instructions

Premnath Ravindranath Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu a. Vs State of Kerala

Krishnadas M. Vs State of Kerala