Quashed

K.R.Narayanan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/1148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a request for an advance increment based on obtaining an M.Phil. The Court set aside the impugned order directing the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to reconsider the claim adverting to a judgment in a similar case, after allowing the respondent an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; consequential direction to 3rd respondent to reconsider petitioner's claim within four months after hearing.

K.R.Narayanan, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

¶6

WP(C) NO. 1148 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

K.R.NARAYANAN,
AGED 62 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RETD),
N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING
AT VIPANCHIKA, B.K. PURAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM 682 308.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶13

4 THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686 101.

¶14

BY ADV V.VIJULAL

¶15

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P (C) No. 1148 of 2022

¶18

..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order of the 3^rd respondent, through which, her request for an advance increment as per Clause 10.8 of Ext.P5 Government Order, has been rejected saying that it is not admissible to her.

¶21

Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that Ext.P5 is now totally untenable because, a learned Judge of this Court had delivered Ext.P6 judgment in the case of a similarly situated person, holding that he is entitled to the advance increment in question.

¶22

Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam - learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that Ext.P5 is irreproachable because, going by the applicable Rules and Circulars, the petitioner cannot get an advance increment for having obtained M.Phil; and that this is more so because, his claim was made more than thirteen years later.

¶23

Sri.Vijulal - learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, submitted that, the controversy projected herein is between

¶24

..3..

¶25

W.P (C) No. 1148 of 2022

¶26

the petitioner and the official respondents; and that his client has no comment to make on it.

¶27

When I consider and evaluate the submissions of

¶28

Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam as afore, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the same because, as rightly argued by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Ext.P6 judgment seems to indicate that the stand adopted by the Government in Ext.P5 is not correct. Further, the question whether mere delay, even if there was any, would disentitle the petitioner to claim an advance increment, which has been provided through a valid circular, is an issue that ought to have been considered and specifically stated. As long as Ext.P5 is silent in all these aspects, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with it.

¶29

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to Ext.P6, after affording him an opportunity of being heard and of producing any additional relevant documents; thus culminating in an appropriate order

¶30

W.P (C) No. 1148 of 2022

¶31

..4..

¶32

and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

ACR

¶35

W.P (C) No. 1148 of 2022

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1148/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUES BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/1996.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE M. PHIL CERTIFICATE
AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
(P) NO. 58/2010/H.EDN, DTD.
27.03.2010.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION
OF PAY DT. 22.02.2021 FORWARDED TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
6195 OF 2015.

K.R.Narayanan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Narayanan, 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

B.S.Sanjeev Vs Mattancherry Sarvajanik Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.3284

Sajesh K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Girish G Vs State of Kerala

Kannur Medical College Vs Mashood. C

The Principal, Kannur Medical College Vs Binu Samuel

Principal Kannur Medical College Vs Faizal. N