Partly allowed

Dr.Joseph Mathew v. the Executive Committee and Others

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WP(C)/3473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by setting aside a show cause notice issued by the University authorities. The notice aimed to challenge the validity of promotion orders based on a 1996 UGC Scheme, despite a final judgment of this Court in a prior petition mandating the disbursement of monetary benefits based on those promotions without dispute over their validity.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice (Ext.P5) was set aside, and respondents were directed to disburse monetary benefits as per the earlier final judgment (Ext.P4).

Dr.Joseph Mathew Vs the Executive Committee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.JOSEPH MATHEW,PROFESSOR AND HEAD, UNIVERSITY LIVE STOCK FARM AND FODDER-RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEME,COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL SCIENCES,MANNUTHY,RESIDING AT BETHEL CHEMMANATHARA, PUTHENTHARA,GANDHI NAGAR,MANNUTHY,TRISSUR 680 651 BY ADV SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,VELLANIKARA,TRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,680 654. 2 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKKARA,TRISSUR 680 654. 3 THE COMPTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR 680 654. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSI SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(C).No. 3473 of 2011

¶16

Dated this the 06^th day of December, 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶19

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writs, directions or orders directing the respondents 2 and 3 to issue the pay slip authorizing to draw the pay scale of Rs.37000-67000 of Professor in 2006 UGC Scheme with arrears to the petitioner,

¶20

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writs directions or Orders directing the respondents 2 and 3 to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in Rs.37400-67000 with effect from 27.7.2006 in the post of Professor and to disburse the consequential arrears, and increments forthwith.

¶21

(c) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.”[SIC]

¶22

The petitioner obtained PhD on 31.10.1997.

¶23

The petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor as

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶26

per Ext.P2 with effect from 27.07.1998. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner was promoted as Professor with effect from 27.07.2006. When the monitory benefit based on Exts.P2 and P3 are not disbursed, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.26187/2008 before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment directed the respondents to disburse the monitory benefits. After Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued stating that the promotion given to the petitioner as per Exts.P2 and P3 are in violation of 1996 UGC Scheme. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 judgment became final and in such circumstances, Ext.P5 show cause notice will not stand. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶28

and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P4 became final and in Ext.P4 there

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶32

is positive direction to disburse the consequential benefits within a time frame. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 show cause notice will not stand. The Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that the promotion given to the petitioner as per Exts.P2 and P3 are against 1996 UGC Scheme and that is why Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued. It is also submitted that, Ext.P5 is only a show cause notice and the petitioner is free to file appropriate explanation and the respondents will consider the same in accordance to law.

¶33

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. Ext.P2 is the first promotion order of the petitioner which is dated 04.09.2007. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Professor on 23.01.2008 as evident by Ext.P3 and that also with effect from 27.07.2006. Thereafter, when the monitory benefits were not disbursed, the

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶36

petitioner approached this Court and this Court delivered a judgment as evident by Ext.P4. It will be better to extract Ext.P4 judgment.

¶37

“Petitioner contends that by Ext. P1, he was promoted to the cadre of Associate Professor with effect from 27.7.1998 and by Ext. P2 as Professor, with effect from 27.7.2006. Though promotion to the aforesaid cadres was given to the petitioner with effect from the dates indicated above, it is pointed out that the consequential benefits have not been extended so far.

¶38

2. I heard the Standing Counsel who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 also.

¶39

3. The issuance of Exts. P1 and P2 or the promotions that have been given in pursuance thereof are not in dispute. If that be so, there is no reason why the consequential benefits are not extended to the petitioner. This shall be done by respondents 2 and 3 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 3 for compliance.” [underline supplied]

¶41

If Ext.P4 is in force, the respondents can issue

¶42

Ext.P5 only after reviewing Ext.P4 judgment.

¶43

¶44

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶45

Admittedly, Ext.P4 is not challenged and it became final. If that is the case, according to me, Ext.P5 show cause notice will not stand as long as Ext.P4 is in force.

¶46

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the

¶47

following manner:

¶48

i ) Ext.P5 is set aside. ii ) The respondents will disburse the monitory benefit as directed in Ext.P4 judgment, forthwith, if Ext.P4 became final.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶51

¶52

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2011

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3473/2011

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F 10/99-PER.IV DATED 19.4.2001.	.NO.21-
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDERNO.GA/C2/35758/ 04[VS-20] 4.9.2007	THE DATED
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF	THE
	ORDERNO.GA/C2/536/08[51]DATED 23.1.2008
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 18.9.2008 IN WP[C]NO.26187 OF	DATED 08
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROC	EEDINGS
	NO.GA/C2/35758/04 [III] 2.2.2009.	DATED
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROC NO.GA/C2/20608/09 DATED 8.7.20	EEDINGS 10.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2(3)/09AP (EDN) 22.9.2010.	LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT RESPONDE	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST 26.11.2010. NTS EXHIBITS: NIL	DATED

¶57

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Dr.Joseph Mathew v. the Executive Committee and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Joseph Mathew v. the Executive Committee and Others

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

K.K.Paulose Vs a.T.Paulose

Bismi S. Baby, Vs State of Kerala

Savithri P Vs the State of Kerala

N.Sukumaran Vs Excise Commissioner and Others

Dr.T.v.Aravindakshan Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Sarasamma Thankappan Vs Secretary to the Government of India New Delhi