IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19679 of 2008(P)
1. SUSAN MATHEW, LECTURER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL, ST. THOMAS COLLEGE,
3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 19679 OF 2008 (P)
====================
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Lecturer in the St.Thomas College, Kozhenchery.
During the period from 89-97, petitioner had rendered broken service for
various spells of time. Finally, regular appointment was given to the
petitioner, effective from 01/04/99. Taking into account the service,
including the broken service rendered by the petitioner prior to her regular
appointment, on her completion of 7 years service, senior scale was
granted to the petitioner effective from 9/2/97. This was approved by the
University as per Ext.P2. When the 1st respondent objected to the same
and sought clarification from the University, responding to the querry
raised by the 1st respondent, University gave Ext.P7 reply reiterating the
approval granted by Ext.P2 and relying on Ext.P8 Government order dated
24/12/96 in support of their stand. Despite this, the 1st respondent did not
countersign the salary bills and that led the petitioner to file this writ
petition.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is
stated that entitlement of a person for higher scale commences only on
WPC 19679/08
:2 :
regular appointment and therefore petitioner could have claimed senior
scale only subsequent to 01/04/99 when she was appointed on a regular
basis. Yet another contention raised is that teachers who are continuing
without sufficient workload are not entitled to senior scale. Ext.R1(c)
Government order has been relied on in support of this plea.
3. In so far as the first objection that the petitioner could have
claimed senior scale only subsequent to 01/04/99 is concerned, I am
inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader. As is evident from
Ext.R1(a), UGC benefits are available to those who are appointed on a
regular basis against permanent vacancies and it may be possible for the
teacher to claim that her prior service should also be reckoned. But such a
claim can be made only after regular appointment has been granted and
therefore, even if broken period of previous service should also be
counted, senior scale can be effective only after regular appointment.
4. In this case, regular appointment was granted to the
petitioner only from 01/04/99. Despite this, reckoning the broken period of
service rendered by the petitioner, senior scale has been granted to the
petitioner effective from 9/2/97. This has been approved by the University
by Ext.P2 and the 1st respondent was perfectly justified in raising a querry
on this. Therefore, this certainly is a matter for the University to
WPC 19679/08
:3 :
reconsider.
5. In so far as the other plea raised by the respondents that in
the absence of sufficient workload, the petitioner cannot claim senior
scale, I should confess my inability to accept this contention. This is all
the more so for the reason that this issue is covered against the University
by several judgments rendered by this court. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has made available before me a copy of the judgment of this
Court in WP(C) No.5533/06 where a learned Judge has overruled this
contention relying on the judgment in WA No.2594/05 dated 5/7/06. If
that be so, that objection needs to be overruled and I do so.
In the result, writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the
University shall reconsider the effective date of approval granted by Ext.P2
and depending upon the clarification to be given by the University, the 1st
respondent shall countersign the salary bills of the petitioner and effect
payment on that basis. The University shall pass orders, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and based on that, without any further delay, the 1st respondent
shall do the needful in this matter.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp