{"id":77089,"date":"2009-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-15T06:03:29","modified_gmt":"2015-02-15T00:33:29","slug":"b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 5539 of 2001(H)\n\n\n\n1. B.K.NAYAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :25\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            S. Siri Jagan, J.\n              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                        O.P. No. 5539 of 2001\n              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n               Dated this, the 25th September, 2009.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is a retired Professor (Higher Grade) of the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent-University. In this original petition, he challenges Ext.<\/p>\n
P13 order, whereby his objection regarding the fixation of his pay in<\/p>\n
accordance with the UGC scale of pay      has been overruled and the<\/p>\n
proposal to recover from him certain amounts as liability has been<\/p>\n
confirmed. The facts leading to this original petition are as follows:<\/p>\n
      2.  Prior to the implementation of the UGC Scheme in the<\/p>\n
Universities and Colleges in Kerala, in the University of Calicut, there<\/p>\n
were two grades of Professors. One was that of        Professor and the<\/p>\n
other was that of      Professor (Higher Grade).     In  the 1983 Pay<\/p>\n
Revision, the scale of pay of Professor was revised as Rs. 2450-3600<\/p>\n
and that of the Professor (Higher Grade) was revised as Rs. 2600-<\/p>\n
3800. Pursuant thereto, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs. 2600-3800 applicable to Professor (Higher Grade)<\/p>\n
as Rs. 3675\/-. The petitioner retired from service on 30-9-1987.      At<\/p>\n
the time of retirement, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 3675\/-.<\/p>\n
While so, the Government implemented the UGC Scheme as per<\/p>\n
Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders. As per the UGC Scheme, there<\/p>\n
was only one cadre of Professor instead of the two existing prior to<\/p>\n
the implementation of the UGC scheme. The scale of pay of the post<\/p>\n
of Professor as per the UGC Scheme was fixed as Rs. 4500-7300.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, this scale of pay is corresponding to the<\/p>\n
pre-revised scale of pay of Professors as        Rs. 2450-3600. Since<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of the petitioner was Rs. 2600-3800, he is entitled to<\/p>\n
the corresponding scale of pay in the UGC Scheme. He would submit<\/p>\n
that in the Department of Collegiate Education of the Government of<\/p>\n
Kerala, where also the UGC Scheme was implemented, the scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.2600-3800 applicable to Additional Director of Collegiate<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Education was        revised as Rs. 4500-7300 with a minimum of<\/p>\n
Rs. 5700\/- in the scale and therefore since in the University there was<\/p>\n
no scale corresponding to Rs. 2600-3800 applicable to         Professor<\/p>\n
Higher Grade, the said scale of pay should be made applicable to the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the petitioner’s pay should be fixed in that scale of pay<\/p>\n
as Rs. 5700\/- and his retirement benefits should be revised<\/p>\n
accordingly. He has also got a contention that in any event his salary<\/p>\n
should have been fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300<\/p>\n
corresponding to his basic pay of Rs. 3675\/- in accordance with rules<\/p>\n
for fixation of pay in the new scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The retirement benefits due to the petitioner including his<\/p>\n
salary for the last month were not paid to the petitioner at the time of<\/p>\n
his retirement even though he had submitted his pension papers<\/p>\n
seven months prior to his retirement. After several correspondence<\/p>\n
in the matter, by Ext. P1 dated 11-9-1991, an amount of Rs.1,03,005\/-<\/p>\n
was sanctioned to the petitioner as commuted value of pension.<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s pension was also fixed therein. Petitioner’s last month’s<\/p>\n
salary and DCRG were withheld pending settlement of some<\/p>\n
advances.      According to the petitioner, there were no amounts<\/p>\n
pending settlement in respect of the petitioner at the time of his<\/p>\n
retirement, since he had cleared all the advances..<\/p>\n
      4. On 24-1-1989, a communication was issued to the petitioner<\/p>\n
wherein all advances drawn by the petitioner for 17 years, during<\/p>\n
which time the petitioner was the Head of the Department, were<\/p>\n
included as pending adjustment.         By letter dated 26-9-1989, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was informed that an amount of Rs. 2,93,089.05 was<\/p>\n
pending as advances of the petitioner, apart from several books<\/p>\n
which were not found in the stock or issued. By Ext. P6 reply dated<\/p>\n
24-1-1990, the petitioner is stated to have given a detailed<\/p>\n
explanation contending that there is no liability pending as against<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                     -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner.     Since the DCRG and arrears of salary due to the<\/p>\n
petitioner were not paid to him, the petitioner is stated to have sent a<\/p>\n
representation to the 1st respondent seeking disbursal of the same.<\/p>\n
Since, no reply was given to the petitioner in respect thereof, the<\/p>\n
petitioner filed O.P.No. 9057\/1992 seeking the relief in respect of the<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “(a)   Death cum Retirement Gratuity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)    Salary for the month of September 1987.\n\n      (c)    Arrears of salary on the basis of re-fixation in the U.G.C.\n<\/pre>\n
      Scale of Rs. 5,700\/- – Rs. 7300\/- effective from 1-1-1986.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (d)    Arrears of enhanced pension effective from 1-10-1987; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (e)    Penal interest on all dues at market rates from the date of
\n      retirement until payment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
In that original petition, the petitioner claimed a total amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 3,38,075.95 on the above counts. The University did not file any<\/p>\n
counter affidavit in that original petition for a long time and on 18-1-<\/p>\n
1994, by Ext.    P7 interim order, this Court directed the University to<\/p>\n
pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,03,005\/- determined as commuted<\/p>\n
value of pension and a sum of Rs. 45,000\/- as DCRG making a total of<\/p>\n
Rs. 1,48,005\/-. The University did not challenge that order, But, that<\/p>\n
order was not complied with. The petitioner filed a contempt petition<\/p>\n
as CCC No. 123\/1994.          Thereupon, the amount was paid to the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Subsequently, in December, 1992, a counter affidavit was<\/p>\n
filed by the respondents taking the stand that the petitioner misled<\/p>\n
this Court and forced the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,03,005\/-<\/p>\n
as commuted value of pension, which had already been paid to the<\/p>\n
petitioner long before. But, the petitioner submits that he did not<\/p>\n
mislead this Court and since more than Rs. 3 lakhs were due to the<\/p>\n
petitioner from the respondents, although in the interim order, the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 1,03,005\/- was mentioned as commuted value of<\/p>\n
pension, the petitioner accepted the amount as part of the other<\/p>\n
amounts due to him.         The respondents also did not seek any<\/p>\n
clarification in the matter from this Court .\n<\/p>\n
      5.     On 15-10-1993, by Ext. P8 letter dated. 15-10-1993, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs. 18,906.20 is pending<\/p>\n
settlement towards advances drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner<\/p>\n
filed Ext. P9 reply dated 24-11-1993 disclaiming any liability in<\/p>\n
respect thereof. The respondents, however, by Ext. P10 order dated<\/p>\n
24-2-1994, fixed the amount of Rs. 18,906.20 as liability of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, after 7 years of his retirement.        The petitioner filed<\/p>\n
objection to the same on 3-3-1994 by Ext. P11.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    In the meantime, by Ext. P5 order dated 30-3-1995, the<\/p>\n
University fixed the pay of the petitioner in the UGC scale of pay as<\/p>\n
Rs. 4800\/-. The petitioner filed objection dated 4-4-1995 to the same.<\/p>\n
While so, O.P.No. 9057\/1992 came up for hearing before this Court<\/p>\n
on 24-11-1998. That original petition was disposed of by directing the<\/p>\n
University to consider the objection raised by the petitioner dated<\/p>\n
4-4-1995 to Ext. P5 and to take a decision in that regard. This Court<\/p>\n
also permitted the petitioner to make additional representations, if<\/p>\n
any, in the matter. A copy of the judgment of this Court is produced<\/p>\n
as Ext.     P12. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P13 order has been passed,<\/p>\n
wherein, the petitioner’s objection to the fixation of pay by Ext. P5 has<\/p>\n
been rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
1,21,911\/- with interest at the rate of 18% with effect from 21-4-1994.<\/p>\n
The petitioner is challenging Ext. P13 order in this original petition.<\/p>\n
      7. Regarding the fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the UGC<\/p>\n
scale of pay, his contention is that before the implementation of the<\/p>\n
UGC Scheme, he was drawing a pay of Rs. 3675\/- in the scale of pay<\/p>\n
of Rs.2600-3800 and when the UGC Scheme was introduced, the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to the UGC scale of pay corresponding to the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs.2600-3800. According to the petitioner, although<\/p>\n
the UGC Scheme did not contemplate the post of Professor (Higher<\/p>\n
Grade), since the post of Professor (Higher Grade) was existing in the<\/p>\n
University prior to the implementation of the        UGC Scheme, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was entitled to have the corresponding scale of pay fixed.<\/p>\n
The petitioner submits that in the Collegiate Education Department of<\/p>\n
the Government of Kerala, where also the UGC Scheme was<\/p>\n
implemented, the pre-revised scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 2600-<\/p>\n
3800 was available to the Additional Director of Collegiate Education,<\/p>\n
which scale of pay was revised to Rs. 4500-7300 with a minimum of<\/p>\n
Rs. 5700\/- in the scale, as per Table 9 annexed to Ext. P4. Therefore,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled to fixation of<\/p>\n
pay at      Rs. 5,700\/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300, which was<\/p>\n
the revised scale of pay of Additional Director of Collegiate Education.<\/p>\n
In the alternative, he would further contend that even if he is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300, he is entitled to fixation<\/p>\n
of pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300 applicable to University<\/p>\n
Professor corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 3675\/-, which he was<\/p>\n
drawing in the pre-revised scale of pay. According to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
since the Additional Director of Collegiate Education is entitled to a<\/p>\n
minimum of Rs. 5700\/- as per Table 9 of Ext. P4, the petitioner’s pay<\/p>\n
should also be fixed as Rs. 5700\/- on the date of his retirement and his<\/p>\n
retirement benefits should be computed accordingly. Regarding the<\/p>\n
liability fixed on him, the petitioner would contend that going by Rule<\/p>\n
3 of Part III of K.S.R, no liability could have been fixed on the<\/p>\n
petitioner after three years of his retirement, whereas, in this case,<\/p>\n
the amount of Rs. 18,960\/- has been fixed as liability on the petitioner<\/p>\n
more than 7 years after his retirement. He would further submit that<\/p>\n
even otherwise, he had sufficiently explained the discrepancy and<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore no liability was due from him. It is further contended that<\/p>\n
the University had filed a suit for recovery of the amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 1,48,805\/- from the petitioner, which suit was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Therefore, no amount could have been ordered to be recovered from<\/p>\n
him, is the contention raised. The petitioner would submit that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is also entitled to interest on the delayed payment on<\/p>\n
retirement benefits due to him.\n<\/p>\n
      8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University disputing<\/p>\n
all the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner<\/p>\n
is entitled to fixation of pay only in the scale of pay applicable to<\/p>\n
Professors in the UGC Scheme. As per the UGC Scheme, there is<\/p>\n
only one cadre of Professor and the scheme does not contemplate a<\/p>\n
Professor (Higher Grade). The scale of pay of Professor as per the<\/p>\n
UGC Scheme is Rs. 4500-7300 corresponding to the pre-revised scale<\/p>\n
of pay of Rs. 2450-3600. By Ext. R2(e) order of the Government, the<\/p>\n
method of fixation of pay in that scale has been detailed as per which<\/p>\n
for the maximum in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 3600\/-, the<\/p>\n
fixation of pay is Rs. 4800\/-, which has been granted to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
No fixation can be made otherwise than provided in Appendix VII of<\/p>\n
Ext. R2(e), is the contention raised. The University raises a further<\/p>\n
contention that admittedly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by Ext.<\/p>\n
P5 as early as on 30-3-1995 and he has not chosen to challenge the<\/p>\n
same within a reasonable time. Therefore, he cannot now resurrect<\/p>\n
his stale claim in this original petition is the contention of the<\/p>\n
University in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
      9. As far as the fixation of liability is concerned, the University<\/p>\n
would contend that the petitioner has received a duplicate payment in<\/p>\n
respect of commuted value of pension, which the University was<\/p>\n
forced to pay under threat of contempt proceedings and the order in<\/p>\n
respect of the same was obtained by                  the petitioner by<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
misrepresenting the facts before this Court and the University is<\/p>\n
entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner with interest<\/p>\n
insofar as the same has been paid pursuant to orders of this Court,<\/p>\n
which amount, the petitioner had, admittedly,           earlier received<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext. P1.      As far as the liability    of Rs. 18,906\/- is<\/p>\n
concerned, it is submitted that that fixation of liability has also not<\/p>\n
been challenged by the petitioner within a reasonable time and the<\/p>\n
petitioner cannot collaterally challenge the same in this original<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
      10. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in support<\/p>\n
of his contention in the original petition and seeking to controvert the<\/p>\n
contentions in the counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
      11.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      12.    I shall first deal with the objection of the University<\/p>\n
regarding the petitioner sleeping over his rights in respect of the<\/p>\n
fixation of pay. It is true that in Ext. P5 dated 30-3-1995, the pay of<\/p>\n
the petitioner was fixed as Rs. 4800\/-. But in Ext. P13 order, it is<\/p>\n
specifically stated that a representation       dated 4-4-1995 of the<\/p>\n
petitioner    is seen in the file in respect thereof.       In Ext. P12<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court, a representation dated 4-4-1996 is directed to<\/p>\n
be disposed of. (This appears to be a mistake and the same should be<\/p>\n
a representation dated 4-4-1996, which is clear from Ext. P13 order<\/p>\n
also.) In any event, the fixation was during the pendency of O.P.No.<\/p>\n
9057\/1992.      That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P12<\/p>\n
judgment dated 24-11-1998 directing consideration of the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
objection to Ext. P 5. It is pursuant to that direction in the judgment<\/p>\n
that Ext. P13 order was passed, wherein the question of fixation of<\/p>\n
pay has also been considered and rejected. That order is under<\/p>\n
challenge before me, which was filed immediately after passing Ext.<\/p>\n
P13 order. Therefore, I do not think that the University can now take<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
a contention that since the petitioner has not challenged Ext. P5 at<\/p>\n
that time, the petitioner cannot collaterally challenge the same while<\/p>\n
challenging Ext. P 13 order.\n<\/p>\n
      13. As far as the claim of the petitioner for fixation of pay in<\/p>\n
accordance with Table 9 of Ext. P4 applicable to Additional Director of<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education is concerned, I am unable to countenance the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioner. There is no post of Additional Director of<\/p>\n
Collegiate Education in the University. Therefore, the fixation of pay<\/p>\n
applicable to Additional Director of Collegiate Education cannot be<\/p>\n
imported into the fixation of pay of Professor of the University. As<\/p>\n
such, I do not find any merit in that contention of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      14. But, the petitioner has still got another contention to the<\/p>\n
effect that even otherwise, he is entitled to have his pay fixed in the<\/p>\n
UGC scale of pay applicable to Professor corresponding to his pre-<\/p>\n
revised pay of Rs. 3675\/-. The contention of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
prior to the introduction of the UGC Scheme, there were two grades<\/p>\n
of Professors in the University, one with a scale of pay of Rs. 2450-<\/p>\n
3600 and another with a scale of pay of Rs. 2600-3800. In the UGC<\/p>\n
Scheme, the two grades of Professors have been dispensed with and it<\/p>\n
was unified as one post of University Professor. That would mean that<\/p>\n
the two scales of pay of Rs. 2450-3600 and 2600-3800 have been<\/p>\n
merged into one scale of pay with the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4500-<\/p>\n
7300. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled<\/p>\n
to fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300 corresponding<\/p>\n
to his pre-revised pay of Rs. 3675\/-. He would submit that Appendix<\/p>\n
VII of Ext. R2(e) is only a guideline giving a ready reckoner for<\/p>\n
fixation of pay and although in the same only fixation of pay of the<\/p>\n
maximum in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3600 only has<\/p>\n
been mentioned, that is not exhaustive and in the petitioner’s case,<\/p>\n
he is certainly entitled to have his pay fixed corresponding to his pre-<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                  -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
revised pay of Rs. 3675\/-, by fixing the same in accordance with Rule<\/p>\n
2 of Appendix VII of Ext. R2(e). The contention of the University is<\/p>\n
that it cannot be done. The University is bound by Ext. R2(e). Ext.<\/p>\n
R2(e), particularly, Appendix VII thereof, contemplates only fixation of<\/p>\n
pay in respect of pre-revised pay of up to Rs.3600\/- and does not<\/p>\n
contemplate fixation of pay in respect of pay of Rs. 3675\/-. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the petitioner is entitled to only fixation of pay corresponding to pre-<\/p>\n
revised pay of Rs. 3600\/-, which, going by Ext. R2(e) is Rs. 4800\/-<\/p>\n
which has been granted to the petitioner.         After considering the<\/p>\n
contentions of both parties, I am inclined to agree with the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, prior to the introduction of the UGC Scheme, there were<\/p>\n
in fact, two grades of Professors in the University, one having the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3600 and the other that of Professor (Higher<\/p>\n
Grade) having the scale of pay of Rs. 2600-3800. It cannot be taken<\/p>\n
that the petitioner should be denied all benefits in respect of his pre-<\/p>\n
revised pay of Rs. 3675\/- when the two posts have been merged into<\/p>\n
one post of Professor having a common scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300.<\/p>\n
It must be taken that the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300 is by<\/p>\n
merging the two pre-revised scales of pay of Rs. 2450-3600 and<\/p>\n
Rs. 2600-3800. Therefore, although a unified scale of pay has been<\/p>\n
prescribed for Professor, that would not mean that the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot have fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4500-<\/p>\n
7300, corresponding to the pay he was drawing formerly, namely,<\/p>\n
Rs. 3675\/-. I do not find any merit in the contention that no fixation<\/p>\n
can be done otherwise than in Appendix VII of Ext. R2(e), which<\/p>\n
contemplates a fixation of pay only up to the maximum in the pre-<\/p>\n
revised scale of pay viz. Rs. 3600\/-. Appendix VII is only a ready<\/p>\n
reckoner and cannot be treated as exhaustive for all situations.<\/p>\n
Fixation has to be made in accordance with Rule 2 of Ext. R2(e). In<\/p>\n
any event, this is a peculiar situation which calls for an interpretation<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                 -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
as above to do complete justice to the parties. Therefore, a pay<\/p>\n
corresponding to Rs. 3675\/- could be fixed for the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300 following Rule 2 of Ext. R2(e). Hence,<\/p>\n
I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given that benefit.<\/p>\n
      15. As far as the claim of the University for refund of the<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 1,03,005\/-      is concerned, I do not think that the<\/p>\n
petitioner can take exception to the same. It is not disputed before<\/p>\n
me that pursuant to Ext. P1, the commuted value of pension of Rs.<\/p>\n
1,03,005\/- had already been paid to the petitioner. In Ext. P7 order in<\/p>\n
O.P.No. 9057\/1992, this Court had directed to pay the very same<\/p>\n
amount again.      Therefore, obviously, there is a duplication of<\/p>\n
payment, which has to be refunded by the petitioner. But, since I<\/p>\n
have already held that the petitioner is entitled to have his pay fixed<\/p>\n
corresponding to his pre-revised pay of Rs. 3675\/-, the retirement<\/p>\n
benefits due to him would also have to be revised in which event the<\/p>\n
petitioner would be eligible for arrears of pension and other<\/p>\n
retirement benefits.    From the said amount of      Rs. 1,03,005\/-, the<\/p>\n
arrears are to be adjusted.\n<\/p>\n
      16.     As far as the liability of Rs. 18,906\/- is concerned,<\/p>\n
admittedly, the same was fixed more than 7 years after the retirement<\/p>\n
of the petitioner. Going by Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R, the<\/p>\n
same is permissible insofar as the liability of the retired employee<\/p>\n
has to be fixed within 3 years from the date of retirement. It is to be<\/p>\n
further noted that the University had filed a suit for recovery of that<\/p>\n
amount, which suit had been dismissed. Therefore, the said amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. 18,906\/- cannot be recovered from the petitioner now.<\/p>\n
      17. In the above circumstances, the original petition is disposed<\/p>\n
of with the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
      Ext. P13 order,    insofar as     the objection of the petitioner<\/p>\n
against Ext. P5 fixation of pay was rejected and recovery of liability of<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 5539\/01                 -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs. 18,906\/- is confirmed, is quashed. The respondents are directed<\/p>\n
to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of pay of     Rs. 4500-<\/p>\n
7300 corresponding to the pre-revised pay of Rs. 3675\/- applying<\/p>\n
clause 2 of Ext. R2(e). The petitioner’s retirement benefits also shall<\/p>\n
be revised accordingly. The petitioner would be liable to refund the<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 1,03,005\/-. However, from the same, the arrears of<\/p>\n
retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be deducted and the<\/p>\n
petitioner would be liable to pay only the balance, if any, and if any<\/p>\n
further amounts are due to the petitioner,          even after adjusting<\/p>\n
the said Rs. 1,03,005\/-, the same shall be paid to the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
above exercise shall be taken up and completed as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of<\/p>\n
a copy of this judgment. The demand for interest in Ext. P13 is also<\/p>\n
quashed. So also the demand of interest by the petitioner for delay in<\/p>\n
payment of retirement benefits, is also denied in view of the peculiar<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 5539 of 2001(H) 1. B.K.NAYAR … Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :25\/09\/2009 O R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\",\"name\":\"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009"},"wordCount":3609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009","name":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T00:33:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-nayar-vs-the-registrar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.K.Nayar vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}