Dismissed

Prof.v.Radhakrishnan v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018WP(C)/28062/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's entitlement to Registrar-level retirement benefits. The Court held that the petitioner was never appointed as Registrar but only officiated during the incumbent's absence, disallowing the claim for enhanced benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner held not entitled to any retiral benefits as applicable to Registrar.

Prof.v.Radhakrishnan Vs University of Calicut — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.28062 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PROF.V.RADHAKRISHNAN M 112'ANJALI', CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 033.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT.

¶12

3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT (STATIONED AT CALICUT UNIVERSITY), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT - 673 635 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD.28.07.2017 IN I.A.11558/17.

¶13

BY ADV.

¶14

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SC CALICUT UTY.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. S. GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.28062/2016

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner retired from the University of Calicut. The petitioner's claim is that he retired as Registrar of the University. The petitioner refers to some of the communications as well as orders passed by the University. The stand of the University is that the petitioner was never appointed as Registrar. The petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Registrar was officiating the post of Registrar as the incumbent deputed as Special Officer to M.G University.

¶22

It is true, various documents placed before this Court would show that the designation of the petitioner was Registrar. However, the University refuted the same.

¶23

The post of Registrar is a tenure post for a term decided by the Syndicate of the University. The person who acted as Registrar in the absence of Registrar cannot be termed as Registrar. No documents have been produced to show that he was appointed as Registrar. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim the retiral benefits that applicable to the Registrar. The petitioner was Deputy Registrar and the University paid all the retiral benefits as applicable to Deputy Registrar.

¶24

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner

¶25

W.P.(C) No.28062/2016

¶26

¶27

is not entitled for any retiral benefits as applicable to Registrar. The petitioner's other relief has already been worked out as he has received

¶28

all the benefits.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

W.P.(C) No.28062/2016

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 16.2.2016 ALONG WITH THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF SPEED POST.

¶37

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 225/2015/FIN DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 12.6.2015.

¶38

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER WITH NOTICE OF THE LAWYER.

¶39

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DT. 27.7.2016 AND THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT DATED NIL.

¶40

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F2/7667/84 DT. 29.1.1988.

¶41

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, U.O NO. 2559/2016/ADMN/DATED CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. 09.3.2016.

¶42

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PENSION ORDER DTD.26.8.2016.

¶43

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.22.09.2016.

¶44

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.FC4/2336/86 DTD.11.11.1986.

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶46

R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID U.O WAS DISPATCHED TO THE PETITIONER IN HIS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ON 26.08.2016.

¶47

True Copy

¶48

P.S to Judge

¶49

smp

Prof.v.Radhakrishnan v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof.v.Radhakrishnan v. University of Calicut

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

Devadasan.G Vs the Vice Chancellor, University of Calicut

P.P.Prathapan Vs Assistant Educational Officer

Shini George Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Ishakh T. Vs Teh State of Kerala

K.R.Jayaram Vs the Kannur University

Smt.Suja Abraham, Vs Mahatma Gandhi University