IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 2011 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SECURITY GUARD(RETD.) SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI -682022, RESIDING AT KOPPAMPALLIVILA HOUSE, VALICODE, NEDUMANGAD P.O. TRIVANDRUM - 695541. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN - 682022, RERESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HG) LOCAL FUND AUDIT, UNVIERSITY AUDIT WING, COCHIN UNVIERSITY CAMPUS, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SEIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN - 682022. ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM,SC,CUSAT,COCHIN FOR R1 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.30283 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.2011/11 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 20.3.2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.FIN.IV/501/P/2009-10 DT.3.6.10 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF INFORMATION CONVEYED ON 22.9.10 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE OF THE first RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.9.12.09 IN W.P.(C)No.18276/05 OF THIS COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.2011 & 30283 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have retired from service. 2. In W.P.(C)No.30283/11, the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2011. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for a monthly pension of Rs.7,983/- and a lesser amount has been sanctioned as per Exhibit P2. A representation filed by the petitioner resulted in Exhibit P4 order. The petitioner is relying upon Exhibit P5 decision of the Syndicate of the University, whereby they have decided to release the withheld amount of DCRG of all the employees. According to the petitioner, the audit objection, therefore cannot be sustained, especially since the University was competent to grant time bound higher grade. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2011/2011, retired from service on 31.3.2010 and was drawing a basic pay of Rs.7,480/-. Herein also, the same audit objection has been raised, which is challenged on a similar plane. W.P.(C)Nos.2011 & 30283/11 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners in the light of Exhibit P7 judgment produced in W.P.(C)No.30283/2011. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the University appearing in W.P.(C)No.30283/11 submitted that in the light of the legal position declared by this Court in Exhibit P7, the matter will be reconsidered by the University. 6. In Exhibit P7 judgment, in paragraph No.6, this Court has held as follows: “6. Similar issues were considered by this Court in Exts.P15 and P16 judgments. Therein, reliance was placed on the judgment in W.P.(C)No.5908/2005. This Court therein took the view that Syndicate is the competent authority to take a decision as per the Statutes with regard to the grant of time bound higher grade and as long as the decision stands, the University cannot go back on it. Para.5 of the said judgment is extracted below: “ From the above facts, it is clear that petitioner was given the benefits based on a Syndicate decision as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 13.5.2002. The Syndicate is the competent authority as empowered under the Statute and its decision is well within its jurisdiction. As per the counter affidavit also, the University took up the matter with the Government to waive the audit objection. The W.P.(C)Nos.2011 & 30283/11 -3- only reason for issuing Ext.P6 is based on an audit objection and the Government did not agree with the view of the Syndicate. But the fact remains that the decision in Ext.P1 is not yet revoked or cancelled by any subsequent decision of the Syndicate. No materials whatsoever is also placed cancelling such decision. So long as Ext.P1 stands and payment having been effected based on the Syndicate decision, the question arises as to how any recovery could be made and any liability could be fastened based on a mere audit objection. If the Syndicate decision was in any way wrong, then necessarily, the University ought to have corrected its decision, in which case, such later decision of the Syndicate could be the basis of fastening any liability or recovery thereafter”. In the judgment in W.P.(C)No.5908/2005, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sreedharan v. Union of India (2002(1) KLT 444) was relied upon. The judgment in W.P.(C)No.5908/2005 was followed in Ext.P16 judgment also. Therein, in para 4 reference was made to the judgments in W.P.(C)Nos.6406/2005 and 6809/2005 and other similar decisions of this Court”. The decision of the Syndicate therefore governs the field. Already, the judgment stands implemented by the University as per Exhibit P8 produced along with W.P.(C)No.30283/11. W.P.(C)Nos.2011 & 30283/11 -4- In that view of the matter, the Writ Petitions are allowed. Exhibit P4 produced in W.P.(C)No.30283/2011 and Exhibit P2 produced in W.P.(C)No.2011/2011 are quashed. There will be a direction to the University to reconsider the matter in the light of Exhibit P7 judgment and the directions issued therein. Appropriate steps will be taken to release the withheld amount of DCRG and to re-fix of pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will forward a copy of the respective Writ Petitions along with a copy of this judgment to the University for compliance. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn