Disposed

C.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2018WP(C)/8719/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a petition by Assistant Professors challenging the date of monetary benefit entitlement under a redesignation order. The Court found the main grievance redressed by a subsequent Government order and disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider representations regarding the specific benefit date.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to 2nd respondent to consider representations regarding monetary benefit date within one and two months.

C.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 C.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 37 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THALASSERY

¶8

2 C.K.SMITHA ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ELECTRONICS & INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KIDANGOOR. (THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ELECTRONICS & INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, VADAKARA AS PER ORDER DATED 7/08/2012 IN IA NO.9891/2012)

¶9

3 EBY DAVID ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THALASSERY

¶10

4 OJUS THOMAS LEE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KIDANGOOR

¶11

5 P.RAJEEV ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MECHANICAL ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THALASSERY

¶12

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶13

-2-

¶14

6 T.S.PRADEEP ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(ELECTRONICS & INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KIDANGOOR

¶15

7 V.V MAHESH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, (ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING) CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THRIKARIPUR)

¶16

8 N.SURESHKUMAR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR(COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING), CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PUNNAPRA

¶17

9 A.K.NAVEENA ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING) CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THRIKARIPUR

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶21

2 THE CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR COBANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶22

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶23

-3-

¶24

*ADDL 3 DR.ROOBIN V.VARGHESE S/O.V.VARGHESE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, FROM VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALAN.P.O., MANARKADU, KOTTAYAM. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 IN I.A.NO.15347/12.

¶25

BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMT.J.SURYA SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.M.SASINDRAN SC CAPE GP SRI. S. DILIP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶28

-4-

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The writ petition was filed while the petitioners were working as Assistant Professors in the Engineering Colleges

¶31

managed by the 2^nd respondent. The All India Council for Technical Education issued Ext.P1 Regulations prescribing the pay scales, service conditions and qualifications for the teachers and other academic staffs in technical institutions.

¶32

As per the above Regulation, the categories of teaching course in Engineering Colleges (Degree) was revised and redesignated as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. The scales of pay of the aforementioned categories was prescribed as follows:

¶33

“Assistant Professors (Entry post)- Rs.15600-39100 with AGP (Academic Grade Pay) Rs.6000/Associate Professors - Rs.37400- 67000 + AGP Rs.9,000/Professors - Rs.37400-67000 +AGP Rs.10,000/-”

¶34

Later, the Government issued Ext.P2 Government

¶35

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶36

-5-

¶37

order, implementing Ext.P1 Regulations. The Executive Committee of the 2^nd respondent, in its meeting held on 25.1.2012, also resolved to implement the revised scheme issued by the AICTE vide Ext.P1 and adopted by the Government as per Ext.P2. In implementation of the above decision, the Executive Committee of the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P3 order. Clause j.9 of Ext.P3 order deals with placement of Assistant Professors in service, as on the date of the order (23.2.2011) in the revised pay band and their re-designation as Associate Professor. Clause j.9 of Ext.P3 reads as follows:

¶38

"j9. Assistant Professors/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service as on the date of this order shall continue to be designated as Assistant Professors/Lecturers (Selection Grade) until they are placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner described in the Govt.order."

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶40

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶41

-6-

¶42

that petitioners 1 to 5 and four others had completed service as Assistant Professors in the scale of pay of Rs.12000-18300 as on 1.1.2011 (date of effect of Ext.P3 order) and hence they have become entitled to be placed in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- and to be re-designated as Associate Professors. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent had issued Ext.P4 order re-designating all the petitioners as Associate Professors and placing them in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/-. Petitioners 1 to 5 were thus re-designated with effect from 1.1.2011 and petitioners 6 to 9 with effect from 22.10.2011, 28.10.2011, 21.10.2011 and 28.10.2011 respectively. It is pointed out that after issuance of Ext.P4, the same was kept in abeyance without implementation, on the basis of Exts.P5 and P6 communications, by which clarification was sought from the Government. The writ petition was filed at that

¶43

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012 -7-

¶44

point of time praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P5 and P6 and consequential orders and with a further prayer to direct the 2^nd respondent to implement Ext.P4 with a modification to paragraph 4, by allowing monetary benefits to the re-designated Associate Professors with effect from 1.1.2011 or from the date of effect of redesignation, as the case may be.

¶45

It is pointed out that during the pendency of this writ petition, the clarifications sought from the Government was received by the second respondent, consequent to which Ext.P9 was issued. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 reads as under:

¶46

“4) In the light of the Government letter read as 7^th paper above, the matter was placed before the Executive Committee held on 22.08.2012 and the Committee resolved to approve the proposal with effect from 01.01.2011 (ie, the date of effect of the pay revision order issued vide proceedings dated 23.02.2011) and the monetary benefit with effect from 06.12.2011. It is also resolved that

¶47

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶48

-8-

¶49

those who have not acquired Ph.D and were appointed as Assistant Professors after 0101 2011 shall not be eligible for this benefit. Those who are re-designated as Associate Professors shall be placed in the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- with effect from 06. 12. 2011 or on the date of three years whichever is later.

¶50

In the circumstances, the following Assistant Professors in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 12000-18300 are re-designated as Associate Professors in the band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- with effect from 01.01.2011 or on completion of three years of service in the cadre of Assistant Professors whichever is later. The monetary benefit will be with effect from 06.12.2011 or on the date of effect of promotion whichever is later. No one shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted or designated as professor, unless he or she possesses a Ph.D and satisfies other academic conditions, as laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) from time to time and/or notified by Government.

¶51

Sl. No.	Name	DOJ in CAPE service as Asst.Prof.	Date of effect of re- designation	Depart- ment	Name of Colleges.
1	Shri. Ramachandran C,	03/07/03	01/01/11	ECE	CE, Thalassery
2	Smt.Praseeda Lakshmi V	09/03/05	01/01/11	ECE	CE, Kidangoor
3	Smt.Bindhu Prakash	28/03/05	01/01/11	EEE	CE, Perumon
4	Smt. Indu P Nair	06/02/06	01/01/11	EEE	CE, Kidangoor
5	Shri. Eby David	10/09/07	01/01/11	ME	CE,Thalassery
6	Smt.Smitha C.K	10/09/07	01/01/11	EIE	CE Vadakara

¶52

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶53

-9-

¶54

7	Shri. Ojus Thomas Lee	12/09/07	01/01/11	CSE	CE Kidangoor
8	Shri. P. Rajeev	19/09/07	01/01/11	ME	CE, Thalassery
9	Smt. Ananda Rashmi	19/09/07	01/01/11	ECE	CE, Perumon
10	Shri. PradeepT.S	23/10/08	22/10/11	EIE	CE, Perumon
11	Shri.Mahesh VV	29/10/08	28/10/11	ECE	CE, Thrikaripur
12	Shri.N.Sureshkumar	22/10/08	21/10/11	CSE	CEM Punnapra
13	Smt.Naveena A.K.	29/10/08	28/10/11	CSE	CE, Thrikaripur
14	Shri.Bejoy Abraham	08/01/09	07/01/12	CSE	CE, Perumon

¶55

The reliefs sought in the writ petition is substantially

¶56

redressed in the light of Ext.P9 order issued by the 2^nd respondent. The only issue which now survives for consideration is with respect to the date from which the petitioners would be entitled for monetary benefit on the basis of Ext.P4, which has been fixed as 6.12.2011 as per Ext.P9.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out

¶58

that there is discrimination with respect to the date from which the petitioners are found to be entitled for the monetary benefit, inasmuch as, while re-designating

¶59

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶60

-10-

¶61

Lecturers to the post of Assistant Professors on the basis of Exts.P1 to P3, they are found to be entitled for monetary benefit with effect from the date of re-designation. It is therefore contended that the petitioners are also entitled for similar benefit with effect from their respective dates of redesignation.

¶62

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent points out that the 2^nd respondent was compelled to seek clarification from some of the petitioners, since the petitioners had not obtained Ph.D at the time of issuance of Ext.P4. The clarification was answered by the Government only under Ext.P9. The decision to grant monetary benefit pursuant to re-designation of the petitioners was made in the light of the fact that Ext.P4 is dated 6.12.2011. It is also contended that in all cases, the monetary benefit has not been granted with effect from the date of re-designation.

¶63

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶64

-11-

¶65

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, who got himself impleaded, contends that the 3^rd respondent had acquired the requisite qualification much prior to the petitioners and therefore, the re-designation with effect from the same date affects his seniority. I am of the opinion that the contention urged on behalf of the 3^rd respondent has to be independently agitated, since the issue in this writ petition is confined to the implementation of Ext. P4. Since the grievance of the petitioners stands substantially redressed by Ext.P9, I feel that it would only be appropriate that the 2^nd respondent considers their grievance with respect to the date from which they would be entitled for monetary benefit on the basis of Ext.P4. While considering that grievance, the 2^nd respondent may also bear in mind the contention of the petitioners that with respect to the Lecturers re-designated as Assistant Professors, monetary

¶66

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶67

-12-

¶68

benefit was given with effect from the date of their redesignation. The 2^nd respondent may also consider the fact that the delay in implementing Ext.P4 was not for reasons attributable to the petitioners.

¶69

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of providing the petitioners an opportunity to make a representation before the 2^nd respondent, with respect to their claim for monetary benefit on the basis of Ext.P4, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such representation is submitted by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the 2^nd respondent and appropriate orders passed thereon, within a period of two months from the date of

¶70

receipt of the representation. Sd/-

¶71

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶72

Scl/18.12.

¶73

WP(C).No. 8719 of 2012

¶74

-13-

¶75

APPENDIX

¶76

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶77

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AS NOTIFICATION F.NO.373/LEGAL/2010 DATED 5.3.2010 PUBLISHED IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY DATED 13.3.2010.

¶78

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(P) NO.389/10/H.EDN DATED 7.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶79

P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-318/2011/CAPE DATED 23-2-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶80

P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-1662(A) 2011/ CAPE/4135 DATED 6-122011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶81

P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E-1-1662(A) 2011/ CAPE/166 DATED 5-12012 ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT

¶82

P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 21-12-2012.

¶83

P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E1-391/2012 CAPE/1039 DATED 19.3.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶84

P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E1-391/2012/CAPE DATED 19.3.2012 ISSUED BY TE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶85

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶86

R2[A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E1-1662 (A)/2011/CAPE/3977 DATED 13.9.2012.

C.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramachandran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Lekshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Haridasan. K Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Mohanan a Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

K. Mohammed Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

E a Jayakumar Vs Eloor Municipality

Sajeev G. Vs Union of India