IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3034 of 2010(D)
1. OMANA ALEX, LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/03/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 3034 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in
St.Stephen’s College, Pathanapuram, which is an aided college. That
appointment has already been approved by the University. The petitioner has
become eligible for senior scale. The placement of the petitioner in the
senior scale also has been approved by the University by Ext.P1 order. The
petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the salary due to the
petitioner in the senior scale is not being disbursed by respondents 2 and 3.
He would submit that in view of decisions of the Division Benches of this
Court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.Colleges [1998 (3) ILR 1], Shalini
Rachel v. Manager, Christian Colleges [2007 (3) KLT 355] and State of
Kerala v. Arun George [2009 (4) KLT 972], once the University approves the
appointment and placement, the educational authority cannot deny salary to
the teachers as per the approval.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He would
submit that against the decision in Arun George’s case (supra) the State has
filed an appeal which is pending before the Supreme Court, in which there is
a stay of contempt proceedings in that case. He would further submit that
the Government disputes the validity of the approval granted by the
University.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I do not think that in view of the Division Benches decisions of
this Court, respondents 2 and 3 can be heard to contend that they would not
2
pay salary to the approved placement of the petitioner. If respondents 2 and
3 have a case that approval is irregular, it is for them to either take up the
matter with the University or challenge the approval itself in appropriate
proceedings. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner
is entitled to be paid salary in the senior scale as per Ext.P1 approval.
Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to see that
the salary due to the petitioner in the senior scale in accordance with Ext.P1
approval, with arrears, is paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment. For that purpose the petitioner shall see that bills for the
salary are submitted by the principal. However, I make it clear that this
would not stand in the way of the Government or respondents 2 and 3 taking
up the question of validity of Ext.P1 either by referring the matter to the
University or by challenging the approval itself in appropriate proceedings.
But as long as the approval stands, the petitioner shall be continued to be
paid salary in the senior scale.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge