High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-08Writ petition allowed with direction to conside...

Dr. K.P. Ladadhas and Neena Suzann Joshua v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANU SIVARAMAN
Judgment Date: 2021-07-08
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is ordered accordingly. The court directed the 2nd respondent to take up Exts. P14 and P14(a) and Exts. P13 and P13(a) for consideration and to pass an appropriate decision regarding stepping up of pay at par with juniors, in line with the orders in Exts. P9 and P10. The decision is to be made within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment, and the resultant benefits are to be disbursed without delay thereafter, extending to the petitioners those benefits granted in identical cases.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed with direction to consider Exts. P14/P14(a) and Exts. P13/P13(a) and to decide on stepping up of pay and related arrears within six weeks; benefits to be disbursed promptly thereafter.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. K.P. Ladadhas aged 55 years s/o K.Krishnan, Principal, St. Stephens College, Pathanapuram, Kerala
Neena Suzzen Joshua aged 55 years w/o P.M. Oommen, Associate Professor, St. Stephens College, Pathanapuram, Kerala

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
The Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam-691 001
Manager, St. Stephens College, College P.O., Maloor-Enathu Road, Pathanapuram-689 695

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Thomas Abraham
• Anil K. Nair
• Merciamma Mathew
• Aswin P. John
• R. Ananthapadmanaban
• Thayyib Sha
• P.S. Harikrishnan
• V.A.

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader (no specific advocate named in the document)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the pay parity and advancement benefits of two teachers of St. Stephen's College, Pathanapuram, who contend that their pay and allowances should be stepped up to match juniors who gained higher scales under the Sixth UGC scheme and related Government orders. The petitioners, Dr. K.P. Ladadhas and Neena Suzann Joshua, seek (i) mandamus to step up their pay to eliminate inferior pay vis-à-vis juniors, in light of the Supreme Court’s view in Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2009) and Exhibits P9 and P10; (ii) arrears from the date from which juniors started drawing higher pay; and (iii) payment of three non-consolidated/advance increments hitherto unpaid, under the extant policy. The respondents challenge the request as contingent on policy and the absence of explicit court-direction, and note that Exts. P13/P13(a) re-fixation statements and Exts. P14/P14(a) representations have been submitted for consideration. On 8 July 2021, the court found that identically situated persons were held eligible for three advance increments under the 6th UGC scheme upon acquiring PhD qualifications, and directed the 2nd respondent to process Exts. P14/P14(a) and Exts. P13/P13(a) and to decide, noting Exts. P9 and P10. The orders must be passed within six weeks with benefits disbursed shortly thereafter, extending to the petitioners the same relief as in those identical cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are identically situated with juniors who have been granted higher pay and three advance increments under the 6th UGC scheme upon acquiring PhD qualifications. They rely on Exts. P13/P13(a) re-fixation statements and Exts. P14/P14(a) representations filed through proper channels, seeking stepping up of pay to parity with juniors and arrears from the date juniors began earning higher salaries. They contend that non-consideration stems from the absence of a court directive and that the matter should be decided in light of Exts. P9 and P10, which reflect identical-cases outcomes. They urge the court to direct the 2nd respondent to decide Exts. P14/P14(a) and Exts. P13/P13(a) and to extend the benefits committed in the cited judgments to them without delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no direct court direction mandating stepping up or paring with juniors and that policy, budgetary, and procedural safeguards govern the act of re-fixation and advancement increments. They argue that Exts. P14/P14(a) and Exts. P13/P13(a) require due process and careful consideration within the framework of the 6th UGC scheme and related Go orders, and that the decision-making authority must assess factual particulars and financial implications before any adjustment. They emphasize that the matter involves policy-level decisions and that premature interference should be avoided; any arrears must be calculated from the date of appropriate orders, if a competent authority directs such payment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others	2009 (3) SCC 94	Positive	Cited as authority supporting the principle of pay parity/stepping up of pay for identical positions where juniors earn more, forming the basis for the petitioners' claim.
WP(C) No. 32933 of 2014	WP(C) No. 32933 of 2014	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P9 contains a judgment referenced as supportive in identical-cases context, but no detailed discussion within this judgment.
W.A. No. 488 of 2017	W.A.No 488 of 2017	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P10 contains a judgment referenced similarly; cited to illustrate identical-case relief but not elaborated in the decision.

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. K.P. Ladadhas and Neena Suzann Joshua 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.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 DR.K.P.LALADHAS AGED 55 YEARS S/O K.KRISHNAN, PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, COLLEGE P.O. MALOOR-ENATHU ROAD, PATHANAPURAM-689 695, RESIDING AT MINI LAND, SANTHOSH MITRA LANE, KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 588. 2 NEENA SUZZAN JOSHUA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O P.M. OOMMEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ST.STEPHENS COLLEGE, COLLEGE P.O.MALOOR-ENATHU ROAD, PATHANAPURAM, KERALA-689 695. RESIDING AT MISPAH, KALLUMKADAVU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689 695 BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM ANIL K.NAIR MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN THAYYIB SHA P.S. HARIKRISHNAN V.A ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOLLAM-691 001. WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 2 4 MANAGER ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, COLLEGE P.O., MALOOR-ENATHU ROAD, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR- SR, G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 3 ## JUDGMENT ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps to step up the pay and other allowances of the petitioners to ensure that the petitioners do not draw an inferior pay than their juniors in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others reported in 2009 (3) SCC 94 and Exhibits P9 and P10 judgments. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the arrears of the difference of pay and other consequential benefits from the date on which the juniors of the petitioners started drawing higher pay; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps to issue the advance increments due to the petitioners which hitherto remains unpaid; 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Though notice was taken out to the 4[th] respondent, service is not complete. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of Ext.P15 reply given by the Director would show that WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 4 the re-fixation statement and the proposal pursuant to Ext.P14 representation has been received by the 2[nd] respondent. It is contended that the proposal as well as the request of the petitioner for stepping up of pay had been filed before the 2[nd] respondent and the only reason for non consideration is that there is no direction issued by this Court for a consideration thereof. 4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that since the identically situated persons had been found to be eligible for the three advance increments in terms of the 6[th] UGC scheme on acquiring the PhD qualifications, the request made by the petitioner at Ext.P14 and the re-fixation statement forwarded by the Principal are liable to be considered and appropriate decisions taken thereon, taking note of the orders passed in identical cases as well. 5. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to take up Exts.P14 and P14(a) request made by WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 5 the petitioners and Exts.P13 and P13(a) re-fixation statements and to take an appropriate decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners for stepping up of pay at par with their juniors. Decisions of this Court in Exts.P9 and P10 shall be specifically referred to and the benefits thereof, shall be extended to the petitioners also. Orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the resultant benefits shall be disbursed without delay thereafter. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bng/09.07.2021 WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 6 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12526/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE AWARDED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE AWARDED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Exhibit P3 THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GO(P) NO 58/2010/H.EDN DATED 27.3.2010 DEALING WITH THE GRANT OF INCENTIVES FOR SECURING PH.D M.PHIL AND SUCH OTHER HIGHER QUALIFICATION Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 597/2013/ H.EDN DATED 3.9.2013 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D4/3123/18/L.DIS DATED 18.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM FOR GRANTING 3 NONCOMPOUNDED INCREMENTS TO DR. SAJUDEEN P.A Exhibit P5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D4/4246/2018/L.DIS DATED 3.7.2018 ISSUED Y THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM FOR GRANTING 3 NONCOMPOUNDED INCREMENTS TO DR. KOSHY P.M. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE AND PAYROLL ADMINISTRATIVE REPOSITORY FOR KERALA CONTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING DISBURSAL OF PAY AND ALLOWANCE TO TEACHERS OF ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 7 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER - Exhibit P(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER - Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO A7/T.S/S.T/359/2018 DATED 29.8.2018 SENT BY PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, - PATHANAPURAM TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION HIGHLIGHTING THE CASE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER - Exhibit P8(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO A7/T.S/S.T/360/2018 DATED 30.8.2018 SENT BY PRINCIPAL, ST. ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION HIGHLIGHTING THE CASE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER - Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2016 IN WP(C) NO 32933 OF 2014 - Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.6.2017 IN W.A.NO 488 OF 2017 - Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 1691/2018/H.EDN DATED 11.9.2018 - Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO B4/9463/2018 DATED 27.12.2018 SENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TO THE PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHENS COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAY RE-FIXATION STATEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE ON 22.2.2019 WP(C) NO. 12526 OF 2021 8 Exhibit P13(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAY RE-FIXATION STATEMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE ON 22.2 2019 - Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION - Exhibit P14(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION - Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO B4/1986/2019 DATED 14.3.2019 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TO THE PRINCIPAL, ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE - Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO D1/375/2017/H.EDN DATED 19.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.9.2019 SENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOLLAM TO THE PRINCIPAL, ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE