High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-05-27Writ petition disposed with directions to disbu...

BINDU T.R. and VIJI M.P. v STATE OF KERALA and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2019-05-27
Court Decision / Holding: The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1–4 to disburse the petitioners’ salary without further delay, paying current salary from the next month and arrears within four months from receipt of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions to disburse salary to petitioners, with current salary from next month and arrears within four months; no further orders beyond compliance with the directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

DR.BINDU T.R.
VIJI.M.P

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, MCRV HOSTEL, KOCHI-682 011
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, Registrar, Priyadarsini Hills P.O., Kottayam-686 560
MANAGER, S.N.M.COLLEGE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.P. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 516
PRINCIPAL, S.N.M.COLLEGE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.P. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 516

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
• SRI. ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
• GP SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No.11218 of 2019) challenges the non-payment of salary to two petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Professors in Hindi and Malayalam at S.N.M. College, Moothakulam, Ernakulam. The appointments were made in 2012 (Exts. P6, P6(a)) and were subsequently approved by the University (Exts. P7, P8) in 2016–2017. Despite the University’s approval, the Educational Authorities (respondents 1–4) repeatedly sought clarifications and objected to the admissibility of the posts and the workload, yet the University maintained its position. The core issue is salary disbursement after appointment approval, with the authorities contending insufficient workload per Ext. P27 (Ordinance, 2018) and Ext. P26 norms, and the Government’s Ext. P25 communication not to disburse. The petitioners’ counsel argued that, in line with settled jurisprudence, once the University approves an appointment, the Educational Authorities have no authority to withhold salary; remedy lies against the University’s order if aggrieved (citing Cherian Mathew v. Principal SB College Changanasserry; Shalini Rachhel v. Manager, Christian College). The Court directed the respondents to disburse the salary with current salary from the next month and arrears within four months, disposing of the petition in terms of these directions, consistent with established precedents.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Once the University approves an appointment, the Educational Authorities do not have authority to deny salary.
Remedy against the University order is the appropriate recourse for aggrieved parties.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that after the University approved their appointments as Assistant Professors (Hindi and Malayalam) in 2012, the Educational Authorities could not withhold salary on the ground of alleged workload issues. They argued Exts. P7 and P8 reflect University approval, and Ext. P23 shows the University’s reaffirmation of this position. They urged that Ext. P25 (Govt. communication) cannot prevent salary disbursement, and that Exts. P26–P27 (norms and ordinance on workload) do not divest the right to pay salaries already approved by the University.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that salary disbursement is contingent on workload, per Ext. P27 (ordinance) and Ext. P25 (Govt. communication) which restricts the Educational Authorities from releasing salaries until workload clarifications are resolved. They contended that the University’s approval is subject to compliance with workload norms and Government directions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Cherian Mathew v. Principal SB College Changanasserry	1998 (2) KLT 144	Positive	Supports the proposition that once the University approves an appointment, the salary cannot be denied by Educational Authorities.
Shalini Rachhel v. Manager, Christian College	2007 (3) KLT 355	Positive	Used to reinforce the settled principle that salary is payable following University approval and is protected by established judgments.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against BINDU T.R. and VIJI M.P. v STATE OF KERALA and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **mIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 DR.BINDU T.R. AGED 39 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, S.N.M. COLLEGE,MALIANKARA P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.PARAVUR P.O.ERNAKULAM-683 516 .RESIDING AT VALIYAKUNNIL(H), THAMALLACKAL P.O.HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA690 548 2 VIJI.M.P ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM,S.N.M.COLLEGE, MALIANKARA P.O. MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 516. RESIDING AT CHANDRASSERIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.P.PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM-683 516** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**3**|**DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS**| ||**BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.**| |**4**|**DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,**| ||**MCRV HOSTEL, OLD BUILDING, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD,**| ||**KOCHI-682 011.**| |**5**|**MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,**| **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 2 # **REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 560** **6 MANAGER, S.N.M.COLLEGE, MALIANKARA P.O.MOOTHAKUNNAM,N.P.PARAVUR , ERNAKULAM-683 516 7 PRINCIPAL, S.N.M.COLLEGE, MALIANKARA P.O. MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.P.PARAVUR , ERNAKULAM-683 516** **BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professors in Hindi and Malayalam respectively under the 6[th] respondent College, are aggrieved by the denial of salary even after approval to their appointments. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors as per Exts.P6 and P6(a) orders issued on 22.09.2012 and 06.09.2012 respectively. The University approved their appointments as per Exts.P7 and P8 orders, as early as on 03.02.2017 and 31.10.2016 respectively. The Educational Authorities, respondents 3 and 4 sought several clarifications from the University raising objections as to admissibility of post and availability of work load. But the University reiterated its stand in all the communications including Ext.P23 letter dated 07.09.2017 addressed to the 5[th] respondent with **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 4 respect to the clarification sought by the 4[th] respondent. Even after this, the respondents have not disbursed the salary on the ground that work load is not sufficient for appointment of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the University has issued Ext.P27 ordinance regarding the Workload and staff Pattern of Teaching Staff of Private Aided Arts and Science Colleges, 2018 on the basis of the revised norms Ext.P26 issued by the Government on 09.05.2018. 3. Learned counsel points out that as per Ext.P27 ordinance also, posts are admissible for the appointment of petitioners. It is also pointed out that at the time of appointment also there was sufficient work load. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that in view of Ext.P25 order issued by Government, the Deputy Director of Education is unable to disburse the salary. Ext.P25 is only a communication addressed to the University. **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 5 5. It is well settled by a series of judgments of this Court that once the University approves the appointment, the Educational Authorities do not have any authority to deny salary in respect of the appointment of the teaching staff in the private Colleges. It is seen that the educational authorities have not challenged either the approval granted to the petitioners ordered in Exts.P7 and P8 or against Ext.P23 clarification furnished by the University reiterating their stand on the approval. This Court has held that the only remedy available to the educational authorities is to seek appropriate remedy against the order passed by the University, in case, they are aggrieved. No such action is taken so far. As pointed out by Sri. Isaac, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the issue regarding the payment of salary, once the University approves the appointment, is covered by a series of judgments of this Court. [ **Cherian Mathew v. Principal SB College Changanasserry** [1998 (2) KLT 144], **Shalini Rachhel v.** **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 6 **Manager, Christian College** [2007 (3) KLT 355], etc.] Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to see that the salary due to the petitioners are disbursed without any further delay. Petitioners shall be paid current salary from the next month onwards and the arrears of salary shall be paid within a period of 'four months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ## **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.A DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P1 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.PHIL DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P1 C PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHD DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.A DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE B.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST (NET) CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.2.2012 IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN HINDI DATED 18.9.2012** - **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN MALAYALAM DATED 4.9.2012** **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.9.2012** - **EXHIBIT P6 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 6.9.2012** **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 3.2.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 8 **EXHIBIT P8** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 31.10.2016 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.4.2017** - **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.2017** - **EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.7.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.7.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.8.2017** **EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.8.2017** **EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT GRANTING AFFILIATION TO THE B.A ENGLISH (VOCATIONAL) COURSE IN THE COLLEGE.** - **EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE POST ADALAT REVIEW STATEMENT OF THE COLLEGE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEETING ON 18.12.2002** - **EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.8.2010** - **EXHIBIT P18 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2012** **EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2012 EXHIBIT P20 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.7.2012 EXHIBIT P21 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.9.2013** **WP(C).No. 11218 of 2019** 9 **EXHIBIT P22** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.9.2015** **EXHIBIT P23** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT OT THE QUERIES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P24** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2017** **EXHIBIT P25** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.2.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P26 PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.DATED 9.5.2018** **EXHIBIT P27 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.7.2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P28 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.3.2019**