IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1709 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1499/2009 Dated 27/05/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,P.O.KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN VICE CHANCELLOR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- BIJAMMA THOMAS,LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY & APPLIED SCIENCES,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,MALLASSERY.P.O,PULLARIKUNNU CAMPUS,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1709 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. Appellants are the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Syndicate represented by its Chairman who are the respondents in the Writ Petition. They seek to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge who eventually allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein declaring that the respondent is entitled to be treated alike with similarly situated persons in the matter of grant of scale of pay. It is contended by the appellants that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent herein is similarly situated with Dr.Joji J. Anchanattu, Dr.S.Krishnakumar and Dr.N.V.Eldhose is not correct. It is contended that they were appointed to posts created for a period of three years. But thereafter also they continued since the post itself was continued even beyond the period of three years and their appointment itself was on a particular scale of pay. The matter was considered by the Syndicate and based on the Syndicate's decision, benefits were W.A. 1709/2009 2 conferred on them, whereas in the case of respondent herein, the Syndicate did not approve her claim and rejected the claim holding that she is a contract appointee. It is also contended that as far the respondent is concerned, she was appointed as a Lecturer in the School of Applicable Mathematics for a period of one year. Though she continued in the said post based on Exts.P2 to P2(d) upto 2001 from 1995, subsequently the School of Applicable Mathematics was wound up and she was appointed in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) and her tenure of appointment stood extended from time to time as evidenced by Ext.P4 until next decision. According to the appellants, when appointment was made on contract basis, she cannot be regularised and given a scale of pay and her appointment is governed by the specific terms and conditions contained in the contract. If the University has taken such uniform stand in respect of tall he employees who were appointed on such contract basis, the stand taken by the University cannot be faulted. But they cannot pick and choose among the contract employees and extend the benefit to some and deny the same to others. This was found by the learned Single Judge as discriminatory. Though a distinction was made by the appellants in regard to appointment of the respondent W.A. 1709/2009 3 herein that her appointment is on contract basis, we find as far as those persons referred to in paragraph 7 of the judgment are concerned, they were also appointed on the same contract basis and their conditions of service are also governed by the terms and conditions provided in the contract. The respondent has been continuously working from 1995 based on orders issued by the University from time to time without any break. It is fallacy to say that still she is a contract appointee and she cannot be given the benefit given to similar others. So the learned Single Judge directed the University to be consistent in their stand by extending the same benefit to the respondent, which has been given to similarly situated persons. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms