IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9537 of 2009(J)
1. ALLI.M.A.,KARIYALLIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
3. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
4. THE MANAGER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
6. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.9537/2009-J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant in
the Kerala Agricultural University Creche and School. She retired from
service on 31/03/2006. By Ext.P2, the pensionary benefits were sanctioned
to her. The fifth respondent raised an audit objection regarding the fixation
of pay granted to the petitioner at the time of her appointment with a further
direction to recover excess amount paid to the petitioner. The objection
raised is with regard to the pay scale which was granted to the petitioner at
the time of appointment. It was objected to by stating that the scale of pay
of L.P.S.A in the Government School was Rs.340-535, whereas, the
University has sanctioned a higher scale of pay at the rate of Rs.390-685 to
the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the representation filed by the petitioner in the
matter. The main challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 by which
her pay was sought to be refixed, for the purpose of sanctioning the
pensionary benefits.
2. Ext.P1 is the order by which the petitioner was appointed
pursuant to the selection conducted by the Selection Committee of the
W.P.(C). No.9537/2009
-:2:-
University. She was offered the appointment in a scale of pay of Rs.390-
685. It is evident that the appointment is as permitted by the University
First Statute. It is also evident from the appointment order itself that the
scale of pay is as fixed by the University. Obviously, that was not at par
with the scale of pay applicable to similar posts in the Government Schools.
There is nothing to show that the scale of pay of the LPSA in the University
should be on a par with the scale of pay of Teachers of Government
Schools. In that view of the matter, the audit objection cannot survive.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
this Court in W.P.(C).No.4491/2009 wherein a similar issue was considered.
It was found therein that in the absence of any competent order, whereby the
University was obliged to adopt the same scale of pay as that was relevant
in the Government schools at the same point of time, the objection cannot
be sustained. A reference was made therein to Ext.P5 which provides a
specific clause enabling the Executive Committee of the University to fix
the salary and allowances. The learned Standing Counsel for the University
submitted that in regard to the petitioner herein also the salary was fixed in
accordance with the First Statutes. Ext.P3 shows that the University had
also requested to drop the audit objection.
W.P.(C). No.9537/2009
-:3:-
4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in
the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 to the extent it refixes
the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner will be
entitled for sanction of pensionary benefits as per the scale of pay which
was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 and which was being drawn from time to time.
Therefore, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall take steps to disburse the eligible
pensionary benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms