Allowed

Sr.Mariyamma K.D. v. the Director of Collegiate Education

Kerala HC10 Sept 2018WP(C)/9030/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition of an Assistant Professor regarding non-payment of salary. Directing the University to review workload within three months, the Court ordered immediate payment of salary pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Salary to be paid from the date of appointment pending the University's review of workload within three months.

Sr.Mariyamma K.D. Vs the Director of Collegiate… — Service and Employment | 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 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 19TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 9030 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SR.MARIYAMMA K.D. C/O SR. JOSEPHINE DAVID, HOLLY FAMILY CONVENT, CHALAKUDY PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶9

SMT.NISHA GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR – 680 020

¶13

3 CHRIST COLLEGE IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – 680 125

¶14

4 THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR – 673 635

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC R3 BY SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 9030 of 2016 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Statistics in Christ College, Irinjalakuda in a retirement vacancy of Sri.N.K.Sudhakaran, who retired on 31.03.2013 as per appointment order dated 10.02.2014 issued by the Manager. The appointment of the petitioner was duly constituted by the selection committee, which includes Government representatives.

¶20

2. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Calicut University as per Ext.P2 with effect from 10.2.2014. The salary bill submitted was not honoured by the 2^nd respondent for the reason that the Department of Collegiate Education was of the view that the retiree, namely, Sri. N.K.Sudhakaran, was a supernumerary and no work load is available to accommodate the petitioner. As seen from R2(a), the Government as early as on 19.01.2016, directed the University to review the approval. It is to be noted that the University has not passed any order reviewing the approval.

¶21

WP(C).No. 9030 of 2016 3

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Christ College would submit that the total work load is 27 hours per week and after accommodating one teacher, there is an excess of 11 hours and therefore, appointment of petitioner is perfectly justified.

¶23

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that on the strength of the approval already granted to the petitioner, she shall be given salary from the date of appointment. However, this will be subject to an enquiry to be conducted by the University with regard to the workload. The University shall take a decision based on directions in Ext.R2(b) within a period of three months. In the meanwhile, the University shall pay current salary to the petitioner without any delay.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

ACM A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶26

11/09/18 JUDGE

¶27

WP(C).No. 9030 of 2016 4

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTEMNT ORDER DT 10/2/14 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 3/2/15 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE WORKLOAD STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL WORKLOAD FOR THE YEAR 2014-15
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE WORK LOAD FIXED IN THE POST ADALATH REVIEW
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/8/02
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/12/13
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/3/15
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/5/15
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9/10/15
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2/11/15
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 19.01.2016.
EXHIBIT R2(b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.6.2015
	//TRUE COPY//
	PA TO JUDGE

¶31

WP(C).No. 9030 of 2016 5

¶32

The word ''University'' occurring in the last line of judgment dated 10/09/2018 in W.P.(C) No.9030/2016 is corrected and substituted as ''Government'' as per order dated 10/10/2018 in I.A.2/2018 in W.P.(C) No.9030/2016.

¶33

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)

Sr.Mariyamma K.D. v. the Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr.Mariyamma K.D. v. the Director of Collegiate Education

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

Preetha Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha.S.Narayana Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

P. Sudha Vs Village Officer

Tintu P.C Vs State of Kerala