IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32450 of 2007(K) 1. MATHEW.J.MATTAM, S/O.JOSEPH.J.MATTAM, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ... Respondent 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :16/12/2008 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 32450 OF 2007 (K) ==================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is presently a Lecturer, who has been placed in the Senior
Scale. Prior to his regular appointment, the petitioner had rendered
broken service in the St.Berchmans College, Changanacherry itself during
the period 28/9/94 to 31/3/95. Thereafter, he commenced his regular
service w.e.f. 16/6/98.
2. According to the petitioner, these appointments were
approved by the University. Subsequently, giving credit to his broken
service also and acting on the strength of Ext.P2 University order, he was
placed in the Senior Scale w.e.f. 13/12/2002. It is stated this has been
declined to be acted upon by the Deputy Director as according to him, the
broken service rendered by the petitioner is not liable to be reckoned. It is
with that grievance the writ petition is filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgments rendered
by the Division Bench in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College,
Changanacherry (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Mager,
Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355) as also Ext.P3 judgment
rendered by this Court following the earlier Division Bench judgments.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that
the 2nd respondent has sought clarification about the eligibility of the
petitioner to have reckoned broken service rendered by him for placement
in the senior scale. According to the learned Government Pleader, such a
clarification was sought by the 2nd respondent, by his letter No.C3/463/05
dated 28/4/2005 and that clarification is still awaited. It is stated that as
and when the clarification is received from the University, a decision on
the claim of the petitioner will be taken in the light of the clarification so
5. In the judgments rendered to above, this Court has already
held that ordinarily the 2nd respondent will be bound by the placement and
its approval granted by the University. It has also been held that should
he entertain any doubt, the course open to the 2nd respondent is to obtain
appropriate clarification from the University and this precisely is the course
that the 2nd respondent had adopted by addressing letter dated 28/4/05
to the University. The 2nd respondent having sought clarification from the
University, the University should offer clarification in response to the query
that it has received. According to the 2nd respondent, such a reply has not
been received and the counter affidavit filed by the University is
conspicuously silent on this aspect.
6. In these circumstances, I feel that what is appropriate is to
direct the University to furnish clarification in response to the query
received from the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 28/4/05. This the
University shall furnish, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8
weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the clarification
as above, without any further delay and at any rate within 6 weeks
thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall take a final decision in this matter.
Once a decision is taken, steps will be taken for releasing the monetary
benefits that are due.
7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd
and 3rd respondents for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE