Loading...

Mathew.J.Mattam vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 16 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mathew.J.Mattam vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 16 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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.

WPC 32450/07
:2 :

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

furnished.

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

WPC 32450/07
:3 :

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
Rp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information