IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27987 of 2006(F)
1. DILEEP KUMAR K.A.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
4. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.27987/2006-F
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is presently working as H.S.S.T (Economics) in
S.N.M. Higher Secondary School, Moothakunnam. The petitioner was
working as Junior Lecturer in S.N.M. College, Maliankara from 03/07/1996.
The said college is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. Ext.P1 is
the order of appointment.
2. The appointment has been approved as per Ext.P2 guidelines
issued based on the judgment of this Court in O.P. Nos.5755/1997 and
7239/1997. Going by Ext.P2, there was a direction to transfer the Junior
Lecturers to Higher Secondary Schools when the Pre-degree course is
delinked.
3. Even though a condition was imposed in Ext.P3 order of
approval by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education that the service of
the teacher(s) shall be liable to be terminated when Pre-degree is delinked,
that was removed by Ext.P4 order. Subsequent disputes arose between the
petitioner and the Management which resulted in the petitioner filing
O.P.No.13170/1998. The petitioner had challenged fresh appointments
W.P.(C). No.27987/2006
-:2:-
made by the Management in the Higher Secondary School. During the
pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was redeployed to the
Higher Secondary School on 01/03/2004. Presently, the dispute is
regarding the claim for salary from 01/11/2001 to 29/02/2004 while the
petitioner was working as Junior Lecturer in S.N.M. College, Maliankara
4. The petitioner has produced Ext.P8, an interim order passed by
this Court in O.P.No.38220/2001 filed by another teacher who is said to be
similarly placed, wherein this Court directed that the said teacher is entitled
to get salary, and salary was disbursed from 01/11/2001. In fact, the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing O.P.No.1628/2002
which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the petitioner to
approach before the authority concerned and accordingly, the petitioner
filed Ext.P10 representation before the second respondent, but without any
result.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the matter.
The learned Government Pleader relying upon the averments in the counter
affidavit submitted that immediately after delinking of the Pre-degree
course, the petitioner ought to have been deployed to the Higher Secondary
School. Since, that was not done, the Government cannot be saddled with
any liability to pay salary. It is submitted that even in Ext.P2, the
W.P.(C). No.27987/2006
-:3:-
Government have clearly mentioned that Junior Lecturers have to be
redeployed to schools when Pre-degree courses are delinked from the
colleges. Mainly it is contended that the Management of the college should
have redeployed the petitioner to the school owned by them. It is also
pointed out that the action of the Management in appointing teachers afresh
in Higher Secondary School without considering the deployment of the
petitioner is against Government Orders. It is also submitted that delay on
the part of the Management in deploying the petitioner to the Higher
Secondary School cannot result in any liability on the Government to meet
the claim for salary.
6. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid
salary by the official respondents. It is clear from the orders produced that
the approval of appointment of the petitioner has been accorded by Exts.P3
and P4 orders. There was some dispute between the Lecturers like the
petitioner and the Management regarding fresh appointments that were
attempted to be made by the Management. The petitioner had submitted
option for the purpose of getting deployment to the Higher Secondary
School. Since the petitioner had approached this Court way back in the year
1998 by filing O.P.No.13170/1998, it can be safely presumed that the
petitioner was willing to be deployed to the Higher Secondary School. The
W.P.(C). No.27987/2006
-:4:-
position that is emerging from the pleadings evidences the fact that similarly
placed persons have been paid salary in the light of the directions issued by
this Court.
7. One objection that is raised by the Government Pleader is that
the liability to pay salary can arise only if a deployment was made at the
right point of time and the willingness in the matter cannot render the
Government liable to pay salary. Admittedly, the petitioner is at present
getting salary in the scale of Junior Lecturer even after deployment to the
school as the same is protected. Therefore, even if the petitioner was
deployed earlier from the college to the school, he was entitled to be paid
salary in the same scale of pay. Hence, the obligation is on the part of the
Government to pay salary to the petitioner even now since the school is an
aided school and therefore, the contention that since the deployment was
delayed, the Government should be relieved of the responsibility from
paying the salary cannot be allowed.
8. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the
second and third respondents to take appropriate action to disburse
admissible salary to the petitioner for the period from 01/11/2001 to
29/02/2004 while he was working as Junior Lecturer in S.N.M. College,
Maliankara. The arrear bills will be forwarded by the Principal of the
W.P.(C). No.27987/2006
-:5:-
College within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
the judgment to the third respondent. The third respondent will take further
action in the matter and the admissible amounts will be disbursed within a
further period of three months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms