Dismissed

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Bijamma Thomas

Kerala HC20 Feb 2018WA/396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appeal was filed by Mahatma Gandhi University aggrieved by a direction to consider a Lecturer's request for UGC pay scheme benefits. The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the direction, and extended the compliance timeline by two months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the single-judge judgment directing the University to consider the application is upheld; the time limit for compliance is extended by two months.

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Bijamma Thomas — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 396 of 2018 IN WPC. 2098/2015

¶7

-------------------------------------

¶8

¶9

APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION :

¶10

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM – 686 560.

¶11

2 THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM – 686 560.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

¶13

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION :

¶14

BIJAMMA THOMAS,

¶15

AGED 44, W/O BENNY JEROME, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES (STATS), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY MALLOSSERY P.O., PULLARIKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM – 686 016.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SENIOR) SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶18

RKM

¶19

-2-

¶20

WA.No. 396 of 2018 IN WPC. 2098/2015

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN COC.NO.1395/2017.

¶24

ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.12.2017 IN SLP NOS. 33462 AND 33577-33580 OF 2017.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

RKM

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶30

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶31

W.A.No. 396 of 2018

¶32

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶33

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2018

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶36

The respondents in W.P.(C).No.2098 of 2015, the Mahatma Gandhi University and its Syndicate are before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2017 of the learned Single Judge. As per the judgment appealed against, the respondents have been directed to consider the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the revised UGC scheme, provided she preferred a representation seeking the said relief.

¶37

The respondent is a Lecturer in Mathematics in the

¶38

School of Technology and Applied Sciences, M.G. University. She was initially engaged as a Lecturer on contract basis in a self financing institution under the control of the University for a period of one year. Later on, the period was extended and she continued. Subsequently, the Syndicate of the University resolved to engage the respondent on contract basis itself as a Lecturer in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences. While continuing in the post, she sought for the grant of UGC/ AICTE scale of pay and other benefits. Since her request was rejected, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.1499 of 2009.

¶39

W.A.No. 396 of 2018

¶40

¶41

As per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider and pass orders on her request and to grant her the benefits sought for. Ext.P1 judgment was challenged by the University unsuccessfully in W.A.No.1709 of 2009 and later on in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Ext.P3 is the order by which the S.L.P. was dismissed.

¶42

Thereafter, in compliance with the direction in Ext.P1, the University granted to the respondent, the scale of pay that was sought for. The present writ petition was filed complaining that, she was not being granted the increments that formed part of the scale of pay that was granted to her. The learned Single Judge has in the judgment appealed against, found that since the scale of pay was granted to the respondent, there was no justification for denying to her the increments that formed part of the scale of pay. We find no reason to take a different view of the matter.

¶43

The petitioner had a further claim that she was entitled to the benefits of the revised UGC scheme that was implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. With respect to the said claim, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent to prefer a representation before the University and the University has in turn been directed to consider such representation within a period of one month. We are not satisfied that any prejudice has been

¶44

¶45

W.A.No. 396 of 2018

¶46

caused to the appellant, by the said direction. If a representation as directed by this Court is preferred by the respondent, it is up to the appellant to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶47

The learned Standing Counsel who appears for the appellant submits that, the time limit stipulated by the learned Single Judge has already expired. In view of the above, we extend the time limit stipulated in the judgment appealed against, by a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

¶48

The appeal is dismissed with the above directions.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

True Copy

PA to Judge

RKM

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Bijamma Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Bijamma Thomas

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

Cochin University of Science and Technology Vs Jasmine Alex

Akthar Sait Vs Abdul Ziyad

State of Kerala Vs Sameer Oniyil

Dr.Vijayakumar C.P.V. Vs Central University of Kerala

N.M.George Vs the Secretary

The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education Vs Dr. Roshin George