IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19168 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KERALA NON TEACHING STAFF UNION, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE UNIT, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. PRINCIPAL, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY G.P. SHRI T.T.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 19168 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner association represents the non-teaching staff of Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda College, Thaikkattussery, Ollur. The College functions under the Calicut University and the conditions of service of the College are governed by the Calicut University First Statute. As per G.O. (MS)No.95/85/HD dated 6.5.1985 (Ext.P1), the Government sanctioned direct payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 62 of the Calicut University First Statute, the Manager has to prepare and maintain a staff list (seniority list) of the members of non-teaching staff in the College. The grievance of the petitioner is that a proper seniority list of the members of non-teaching staff of the College is not prepared except a list which is produced as Ext.P3. 3. It is stated that even prior to the establishment of the College there was an Ayurveda Hospital under the same management, functioning under the name and style “Vaidyaratnam Ayurvedic Hospital, Ollur”. It is W.P.(C) NO.19168 OF 2008 :: 2 :: also stated that eleven years after the direct payment system was made applicable to the Ayurveda College, in the year 1996, the Government sanctioned direct payment scheme to Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda Hospital also as per Ext.P4 Government Order. The contention of the petitioner is that the non-teaching staff in the Ayurveda College is a separate cadre and the non-teaching staff in the Hospital is another cadre. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has published a provisional seniority list of non-teaching staff of Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda College and Hospital together. The provisional seniority list is produced as Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, it is not a list as prepared under Rule 62 of the Calicut University first Statute. The first respondent has passed Ext.P8 order dated 30.1.2004, which, according to the petitioner, was without taking into consideration all the legal provisions and as a result of total lack of application of mind. W.P. (C) No.6822 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 order. That Writ Petition was disposed of observing that the petitioner can approach the Government for remedying the anomaly. 5. Thereafter, it is stated that the Government as well as the Accountant General's Office clarified that the period of service before implementing the direct payment system in the second respondent W.P.(C) NO.19168 OF 2008 :: 3 :: College will not be counted for pension and have also directed the Principal of the College to correct the anomaly in fixing the seniority. The letter issued by the Accountant General is produced as Ext.P9, while that issued by the Government is produced as Ext.P10. 6. The petitioner contends that in view of Exts.P9 and P10, Ext.P7 seniority list does not survive. Pointing out these facts and praying to rectify the anomaly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 23.5.2008, to the first respondent. Ext.P11 is pending disposal. 7. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 representation in the light of Exts.P9 and P10 within a time frame. Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P11 will be disposed of without much delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 in the light of Exts.P9 and P10, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the second respondent and any other person affected, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on whether contention of the W.P.(C) NO.19168 OF 2008 :: 4 :: petitioner is sustainable in law. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/