High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-07-13Writ petition allowed

Dr. Bijimol Thomas v. Manager Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam; Mahatma Gandhi University; Director of Collegiate Education; Deputy Director of Collegiate Education; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.13017 of 2012 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date: 2012-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 (the Government’s refusal to pay in Senior Scale) is quashed. The court declares that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the Senior Scale from 03.06.2001 and directs the 4th respondent to countersign and process salary and arrears as per Ext. P2, ensuring monthly payment in the Senior Scale.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Bijimol Thomas

Respondents

The Manager Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam
Mahatma Gandhi University represented by its Registrar
Director of Collegiate Education
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu Varghese (Sr.)
• Sri. Johnson T. John
• Sri. Kurian J. Marattill

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M.A. Fayaz (Government Pleader)
• Sri. T.A. Shaji, SC, M.G. University

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Bijimol Thomas, a Lecturer in an aided college managed by the Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, seeks relief against non-payment of salary in the Senior Scale. Under the UGC Scheme, the petitioner was placed as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 03.06.2001 and the University granted approval for such placement (Ext. P2). The Government refused to pay salary in the Senior Scale, contending that the University did not secure Government concurrence before granting the placement, as evidenced by Ext. P3. The petitioner relies on established precedents (Cheiran Mathew v. Manager, S.B. College and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College) mandating that once the University grants approval, the Government cannot simply withhold salary or challenge the approval in a writ petition except for cancellation. The Government contends otherwise, asserting the necessity of prior concurrence. After hearing the Government Pleader, the court notes the law in favor of the petitioner: once University approval is granted and remains unchallenged, respondents cannot withhold salary. Consequently, Ext. P3 is quashed, and the petitioner is entitled to salary in the Senior Scale. The court directs the 4th respondent to countersign salary bills and ensure monthly payment in the Senior Scale to the petitioner.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that once the University grants approval for an appointment, the Government cannot withhold salary in the Senior Scale unless it takes up the validity of the approval with the University or challenges it before this Court. Citing Cheiran Mathew v. Manager, S.B. College (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355), the petitioner asserts that approval by the University should be honored and salary must be paid, absent a challenge or cancellation by the Government.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Government concurrence is a prerequisite before granting University approval. They submit that without Government concurrence the University's approval has no validity to payout in the Senior Scale, and that the Government retains power to withhold or adjust payments pending such concurrence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Cheiran Mathew v. Manager, S.B. College	1998(2) KLT 144	Positive	Cited as supporting the proposition that University approval, once granted, cannot be challenged by Government in absence of cancellation or a challenge before the court; hence salary should be paid.
Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College	2007(3) KLT 355	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that University approvals should be honored and salary paid where no challenge/cancellation has been initiated.

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 Dr. Bijimol Thomas v. Manager Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam; Mahatma Gandhi University; Director of Collegiate Education; Deputy Director of Collegiate Education; State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 13017 of 2012 (B) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-------------** **DR. BIJIMOL THOMAS, LECTURER SENIOR SCALE, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.) SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN SRI.KURIAN.J.MARATTIL** **RESPONDENTS:** - **-----------------** **1. THE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, BISHOP'S HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM-696691.** **2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.** **3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.** **4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011.** **5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. FAYAZ BY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 13017 of 2012 (B)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 18-2-1997 GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE APPOINTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-8-2009.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-4-2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNENT CIRCULAR DATED 9-2-2004.** **EXHIBIT P4(a):TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.30/96/H.EDN.DATED 12-2-1996.** **EXHIBIT P4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE COMMUNICATED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PRINCIPAL.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GO(P) NO.171/99/H.EDN.DATED 21-12-1999.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 28-6-2008 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.** **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF LECTURERS IN ENGLISH UNDER R1 CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.** **EXHIBIT P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.AC BV-(4)/259/2004 DATED 7-1-05 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO SRI.JOSE KOLLAMPARAMBIL.** **EXHIBIT P7(B): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL DATED 21-5-2012.** **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22-3-2012 IN WPC 3876/2012(H).** **EXHIBIT P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23-9-2008 IN WPC 17358 OF 2008.** **EXHIBIT P8(b): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14-3-2011 IN WPC 45/2011.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a Lecturer in an aided College managed by the 1[st] respondent. In accordance with the UGC Scheme, the petitioner was placed as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 3.6.2001. The University granted approval for such placement also by Ext.P2. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that, by Ext.P3, the Government has refused to pay salary to the petitioner in the senior scale on the ground that the University has not obtained Government concurrence for granting placement in Senior Scale to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 (ii) declare that petitioner is entitled to get the salary and arrears with effect from 03.06.2001 in the promoted post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) on th strength of Exhibits P2 approval. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing W.P.(C)No.13017/12 2 the 4[th] respondent to counter sign salary and arrear bill of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.06.2001 in the promoted post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the light of Exhibit P2 approval order, immediately on submission of the bill by the Principal.” The contention of the petitioner is that, in view of the decisions of this Court in _**Cheiran Mathew**_ v. _**Manager, S.B. College**_ [1998(2) KLT 144] and _**Shalini Rachel**_ v _**Manager, Christian College,**_ [2007(3) KLT 355], once the University grants approval unless the Government takes up the validity of that approval either with the University or by challenging the same in a writ petition, the Government cannot refuse to pay salary in the Senior Scale. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is only that before granting approval, the University ought to have obtained concurrence from the Government. I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader. By the above decisions and other decisions of this Court, the law has been laid down that once the University grants approval for an appointment unless the Government takes up the matter with the University for cancellation of the approval or challenges the approval before this Court by filing 3 W.P.(C)No.13017/12 a writ petition, the Government cannot simply refuse to pay salary to the teacher concerned. That being so, insofar as by Ext.P2, the placement of the petitioner in the Senior Scale has been approved by the University, respondents 3 to 5 have no manner of power to refuse to pay the salary to the petitioner in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale). 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale). Therefore, there would be a direction to the 4[th] respondent to countersign the bills forwarded by the Principal of the petitioner’s college for payment of salary to the petitioner in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and see that the petitioner gets the salary in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) every month. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.13017/12 4 W.P.(C)No.13017/12 5