IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 24229 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- DR.V.J.PHILIP, S/O.JOSEPH JOSE, RETIRED PROFESSOR AND HEAD DEPARTMENT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RESIDING AT VALIAMIYALIL, HOUSE NO.2/2557 B, KAINADY LAYOUT, FLORICAN ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT 673 009. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENNIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 635 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENNIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 635 3. MR.P.P.MOHAMMED, THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENNIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM 673 635 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 24229 of 2007(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA PRONOUNCED IN OP NO. 1121/1998 H DATED 13/11/2001. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE U.O. NOTE ISSUED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER DATED 24/09/2004. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/06/2005. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.GA.11/F2/4365/1996 (SUB FILE) DATED 1/6/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24229 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent University of Calicut. According to him, there was a mistake in his service records regarding his date of birth. As per the original date of birth, the petitioner was due to retire on 28.02.1997 and as per the correct date of birth he was entitled to continue in service till 28.02.1998. The petitioner took steps for correction of date of birth in service records. The same was rejected by the University. The petitioner approached this court by filing O.P. No.1121/1998. By Ext.P1 judgment, this court allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioner was entitled to continue till 28.02.1998 and therefore his service until 28.02.1998 was liable to be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits insofar as in the meanwhile he had already retired from service and the date of retirement as W.P.(C)No. 24229 of 2007 -2- per the corrected date of birth was also over. But this court denied to the petitioner monetary benefits for the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service on the principle of “no work; no pay”. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P3 petition before the University claiming that at the relevant time the petitioner had 374 days of half pay leave in credit, which ought have been adjusted against the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service, in which case the petitioner would be eligible for monetary benefits in respect of the said half pay leave. However by Ext.P4 order, the Registrar of the University rejected the request by an one line order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing Ext.P4 Order and to direct the responds to grant the petitioner all the benefits of the eligible leave available to him till 28/2/1998 with the interest.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. Ext.P4 reads thus: W.P.(C)No. 24229 of 2007 -3- “With reference to the above, I am to inform you that the Syndicate at its meeting held on 24.3.2007 has considered your request dated 13.6.2006 to treat the period with effect from 1.3.1997 to 28.2.1998 as eligible leave and resolved that the request cannot be allowed.” As is evident therefrom it does not convey the reason for which the petitioner's claim was rejected. I am of opinion that the petitioner was entitled to know the reasons for rejecting his claim. Therefore Ext.P4 is violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly Ext.P4 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/