IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1235 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30489/2004 Dated 18/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------- DR.E.V.NARAYANA PANICKER, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER (RTD), PLOT NO.18, SREENAGAR, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, P.B.NO.5607, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON 26/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal No.1235 of 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Gopinathan, J. The writ appellant/petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 28-12-1985 in Higher Education Department. Earlier, he was working as Junior Research Investigator in Agro-Economic Research Centre at Jabalpur from 5-10-1970 to 19-6-1980 and thereafter as Lecturer at Bhopal School of Social Science from 1-7-1980 to 21-12-1985. Though, the department counted both the above services for fixing grade, the Accountant General objected counting of service of Junior Research Investigator in Agro-Economic Research Centre at Jabalpur for the reason that it is not an equivalent post with that of Lecturer and it was not a teaching post. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent following the objection raised by the Accountant General, he preferred the writ petition seeking an order to quash WA.No.1235/2010. -: 2 :- Ext.P9 order and also for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to count the service rendered by the appellant at Jabalpur for determining the salary and retiral benefits. The learned single Judge by judgment dated 18- 12-2008 dismissed the writ petition upholding the objection raised by the respondents. Now this appeal filed with a delay of 523 days, of course with a petition to condone the delay. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. No document was produced by the appellant to establish as to what was the educational qualification required for the post of Junior Research Investigator in Agro-Economic Research Centre at Jabalpur. If the required qualification is lesser than that of the Lecturer, for that reason itself that post cannot be equated with the post of Lecturer. Appellant had suppressed that aspect. However, by Ext.R2(c) it is revealed that the nature of work WA.No.1235/2010. -: 3 :- of Junior Research Investigator in the Agro-Economic Research Centre was to collect primary and secondary data on socio-economic aspect, its scrutiny, tabulation, analysis and to help while preparation of draft report of the study. No doubt, these field or office work has no similarity with that of the Lecturer in a college. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the similarity is in the salary. We are unable to accept the argument that salary is a criteria to determine the similarity. Similarity shall be in the nature of work. We don't think that the experience he gained from the field and office work at Jabalpur would any way improve the performance of the appellant as Lecturer so as to entitle him to claim higher grade or retiral benefits. Account General is perfectly correct in objecting the claim of the appellant. 4. As found by the learned single Judge, during the period in dispute, the appellant had undergone M.Phil course and obtained Ext.R2(a) certificate which would show WA.No.1235/2010. -: 4 :- that he had undergone a regular study for obtaining M.Phil degree. It is submitted that the duration of M.Phil course is two years. According to the appellant, for study purpose he has availed leave for 9 months from September, 1978 to May, 1979. We are unable to accept the argument that the appellant could finish two year course in a study leave of 9 months. If what is stated in Ext.R2(a) is correct, the appellant should have been undergoing two years regular study. The argument that he was employed during that period smells rat. Ext.R2(a), the appellant's own document belie his claim that he was in regular service from 5.10.1970 to 19.6.1980. Everything as observed by the learned single Judge appears to be doubtful. Appellant has not come with clear hands. Adding to the above, there is a break of 11 days between the period of employment at Jabalpur and Bhopal. Break of 11 days cannot be taken as period spent on journey as argued by the learned counsel. It is taking into account of all these aspects the learned WA.No.1235/2010. -: 5 :- single Judge dismissed the writ petition. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment on the basis of the given set of facts. The learned single Judge is correct in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is devoid of merits. In the above circumstance, the writ appeal as well as the delay petition are dismissed. No costs. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-