High Court Kerala High Court

P.Gopakumar vs The Director Of College Education on 19 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.Gopakumar vs The Director Of College Education on 19 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29545 of 2007(P)


1. P.GOPAKUMAR, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE EDUCATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE PRINCIPAL, NSS HINDU COLLEGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.GOPAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :19/11/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.29545/2007-P
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein is working as Junior

Superintendent under the second and third respondents’

N.S.S. Hindu College, Changanassery. He commenced his

service as Gasman (Technical) and was later appointed as

Lower Division Clerk with effect from 13/09/1991.

2. He was promoted as Junior Superintendent from

17/09/2004 as per Ext.P1 order dated 24/08/2006 by the

Management. Even though approval was granted, it is

restricted to be effective from 14/10/2005, going by

Ext.P2. The petitioner represented the matter before the

first respondent but the claim of the petitioner was

rejected by Ext.P3. The stand taken in Ext.P3 is that

though the refixation of staff strength of non-teaching

staff ordered vide office order dated 14/10/2005 was given

effect from 17/09/2004 in general, postings in the newly

created post cannot be approved with retrospective effect.

The appointments/postings to the posts which were newly

created vide order dated 14/10/2005 can be approved only

with effect from that date or after.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel

W.P.(C). No.29545/2007
-:2:-

appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the Director of

Collegiate Education dated 14/10/2005 whereby the revised

staff pattern of non-teaching staff has been approved.

Clause (4) therein shows that the order will take effect

from 17/09/2004.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

the Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.17491/2007

(Ext.P5) wherein a similar question was considered by this

Court. The matter relates to the posts of Head Accountant

as well as Junior Superintendent. In paragraph (6) of the

said Judgment, the claim of the petitioner therein who was

posted as Junior Superintendent with effect 17/09/2004 was

considered and it was held thus:-

“6. It is altogether a different

situation as regards the petitioner’s claim

for promotion as Junior Superintendent with

effect from 17/09/2004. In Ext.P6 staff

fixation order, it is clearly stated that in

N.S.S Training College, Ottappalam, a post

of Junior Superintendent is sanctioned. It

is specifically stated in Ext.P6 order that

the said staff fixation order will take

effect from 17/09/2004. Further From

W.P.(C). No.29545/2007
-:3:-

Ext.P12 it is clear that the appointment of

two other similarly placed Junior

Superintendents were approved with effect

from 17/09/2004. The learned Government

Pleader could not satisfy me as to why the

same benefit could not be given to the

petitioner. The learned Government Pleader

could not also explain to me as to how if

the post was sanctioned with effect from

14/10/2005, staff fixation was made with

effect from 17/09/2004.”

6. Similar is the position herein also. Going by

Ext.P1, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Junior

Superintendent with effect from 17/09/2004. The stand

taken herein by the respondents appears to be that Ext.P4

order is dated 14/10/2005 and therefore, approval can be

given only from the said date. Even going by the

prescription in Ext.P4, the said order is effective from

17/09/2004. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be denied

the benefit. I respectfully agree with the findings

rendered by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P5 and hence

the petitioner will also be entitled for a similar benefit

as the post herein was created on 17/09/2004. It is also

clear from the statement annexed to Ext.P2 that promotion

W.P.(C). No.29545/2007
-:4:-

of persons against Sl.Nos.3 and 4 have been approved with

effect from 17/09/2004. The post to which the petitioner

is promoted is a newly created one as in the case of

Sl.No.4. For that reason also the claim of the petitioner

is justified. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.

7. Exts.P2 and P3 to the extent to which the approval

is granted to the petitioner only from 14/10/2005 are

quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent

to pass a fresh order granting approval of promotion of the

petitioner with effect from the date of promotion as Junior

Superintendent i.e. 17/09/2004. He will be entitled for

the monetary benefits flowing therefrom and appropriate

action will be taken to disburse the same within a period

of two months. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms