Sreejith K. and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 17435 of 2006(A)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **1. SREEJITH. K., LECTURER (HISTORY) DARJEELING GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, WEST BENGAL-734 101.** ## **2. ANAND K., P.O.BOX NO.8832, DUBAI, U.A.E.** **3. SANTHANA LAXMI,`DAYA', 2/131A, C.D.A. COLONY,** - **P.O. KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.** ## **4. AROON K., DO. DO.** **5. PRIYA K., DO. DO.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW, SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **---------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BAHADURSHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.** **4. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,HIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1,R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.17435/2006 A** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 4/08/1987 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.** **P2: COPY OF THE ORDER SANCTIONING COMMUTEDSCALE OF PENSION.** **P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 13/3/1990 IMPLEMENTING THE U.G.C. SCHEME INCLUDING REVISION OF SCALE OF PAY TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.** **P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.79/90/H.EDN.DTD. 27/03/1990 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5/03/1991 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/12/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.28549/2005 DTD. 7/10/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 31/01/2006 AS NO.UGC CELL 3(2)/14133/05 C.E.** **P9: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17435 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners' father, who is no more, was a Professor in English in Government Colleges under the Government of Kerala. His date of birth was 27.12.1930. He attained the age of superannuation on 26.12.1985. But, by virtue of Government Orders, he could continue in service till the end of the academic year, viz. till 31.3.1986. The petitioners' father continued in service till 31.3.1986. Subsequently, the Government, by Exts.P3 and P4 orders, implemented UGC scales of pay for teachers of Government and Aided Colleges in the State with effect from 1.1.1986. According to the petitioners, since the petitioners' father was in service till 31.3.1986, the petitioners' father was also entitled to UGC scales of pay with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioners' father filed a representation in 1990. While that representation was pending, a Full Bench of this Court in the decision of _**Accountant General**_ v. _**Neelakantan Nair**_ W.P.(C)No.17435/06 2 [2003(3) KLT 525] held that teachers, who continued in service beyond the age of superannuation till the end of the academic year by virtue of Government Orders on the subject are entitled to benefit of pay revision, which was implemented with effect from a date prior to their date of actual retirement from service. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision of _**State of Kerala**_ v. _**P.V. Neelakandan Nair**_ [2005 AIR SCW 3489]. The petitioners' father again filed Ext.P6 representation before the 2[nd] respondent in view of the Full Bench decision. By Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C)No.28549/2005, this Court directed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider the representation in the light of the Full Bench decision and the Supreme Court decision. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P8 order has been passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx The decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in W.A. 3951 of 2001 etc. pertains to School teachers who are governed by Kerala Service Rules and Kerala Education Rules. In that case the Hon'ble High Court held that the School teachers are eligible for revised scale of pay. Revision of pay in respect of College Lecturers are based on UGC norms and Government Orders. Neither UGC nor Government have extended the W.P.(C)No.17435/06 3 benefit of revision of UGC scale of pay to College Lecturers during their extended period of service. In the absence of specific orders from Government and UGC, you are not eligible to get UGC scale of pay during your extended period of service after the actual date of retirement.” The petitioners are challenging Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioners, revision of pay whether it is as per the UGC scheme or as per the pay revision orders of the Government, it is pay revision coming within the purview of the Full Bench decision in the _**Neelakantan Nair's**_ case (supra) and the principles laid down in that decision is applicable to teachers of colleges as well. They would point out that although subsequently the Government had retrospectively amended Rule 60 of Part I of Kerala Service Rules, the same was effective only with effect from 15.5.1986 and therefore, the petitioners' father, who was in service on 1.1.1986 is entitled to benefit of the Full Bench decision. In this regard they refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in _**State of Kerala**_ v. _**Gopalakrishna Pillai**_ [2009 (2) KLT 39]. The reasoning to the contrary in Ext.P8 is clearly unsustainable is the contention raised. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] W.P.(C)No.17435/06 4 respondent controverting the contentions of the petitioners. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, UGC revision of scales of pay is essentially revision of scales of pay as contemplated by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Neelakantan Nair's**_ case (supra). Further Rule 60 (c) is expressly made applicable to all educational institutions including colleges. As such, the reasoning in Ext.P8 is clearly illegal and unsustainable. Since the retrospective amendment of Rule 60 of Part I KSR was effective only with effect from 15.5.1986,[see **Gopalakrishna Pillai's** case (supra)] the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court and the Supreme Court decision affirming the same. The reasoning in Ext.P8 that the Full Bench decision applies only to school teachers is clearly perverse insofar as Rule 60 (c) of Part I of KSR applies to all educational institutions including colleges and the Full Bench decision has been rendered interpreting the said rule. Therefore, the principles laid down in that decision is clearly applicable to college teachers as well. Therefore, the petitioners' father is 5 W.P.(C)No.17435/06 entitled to the benefit of those judgments. Accordingly, Ext.P8 order is quashed. The 2[nd] respondent shall pass orders granting the benefit of UGC scales of pay to the petitioners' father with effect from 1.1.1986 and recalculating the retirement benefits, if any due to the petitioners' father accordingly. Orders in this regard shall be passed and monetary benefits arising from such orders shall be released to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.17435/06 6 W.P.(C)No.17435/06 7