IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34170 of 2007(P) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.V.SANDHYA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAYYANNUR COLLEGE, PAYYANNUR. BY MR.K.B.GANGESH, ADVOCATE. MS.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NORTH ZONE, NR: HEAD POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. 5. PAYYANNUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PAYYANNUR P.O. BY MR.M.SASEENDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R4. MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34170/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE DTD. 5.12.05 IN RESPECT OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 5.12.05. EXT. P3 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF REGISTRAR OF R4 UNIVERSITY DTD. 15.2.07. EXT. P4 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.26.4.07 CONTAINING THE NOTE OF R3. EXT. P5 : COPY OF SALARY BILL SUBMITTED TO R3 ON 24.7.07 AND ALONG WITH ITS COVERING LETTER. EXT. P6 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.25975/2007 DTD.25.10.07. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R4(a) : COPY OF WORK LOAD STATEMENT AND ALLOTMENT OF WORKLOAD AMONG THE TEACHING STAFF OF THE COLLEGE FOR THE YEAR 2004-05, SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34170 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Lecturer in Chemistry in the Payyannur College, is seeking for a direction to disburse the salary and other benefits with effect from 01.04.2006. The petitioner was appointed as per Exhibits P1 and P2 with effect from 06.12.2005. The proceedings of the University namely, Exhibit P3 shows that the appointment has been approved with effect from 01.04.2006. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a direction to disburse salary and other benefits as respondents 2 and 3 have not been honoured the salary bills forwarded by the Principal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Government Pleader. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the stand taken is that the salary bills are W.P.(C) No.34170/2007 2 withheld due to the reason that there is no sufficient workload to accommodate the petitioner in the Chemistry department. It is also pointed out that the matter was taken up before the University. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that pursuant to the communication of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, the matter was again considered by the Syndicate of the University and by letter dated 23.02.2008 addressed to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, it was informed that the Syndicate resolved as per their resolution No.2008.065 that their earlier decision will stand. Learned Government Pleader on instructions also submitted that the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education has received such a communication from the University. 4. The legal position in this regard is well settled by various decisions of this Court namely, in Cherian Mathew vs. Principal S.B.College, Changanassery (1998 (2) KLT 144) and in State of Kerala and others vs. Arun George and others (2009(4)KHC 477). In the former case, it was laid down by the Bench that once the University has granted approval W.P.(C) No.34170/2007 3 of appointment, the Government cannot sit in appeal over the decision and the liability to disburse salary cannot be ignored by resorting to other methods. It was also held that if the Government/Deputy Director has got any objection, then the matter will have to be taken up before the University again and depending upon the outcome, the liability to pay salary will have to be honoured. In the light of the above legal position, as the University has again reiterated the position as per letter dated 23.02.2008, presently there cannot be any objection regarding disbursement of salary. 5. In the latter case, the Division Bench has taken the view that even if the Government has granted sanction of new courses on condition that the Government will have no additional financial commitments, the said condition will be against the provisions of the University Statutes and the Direct Payment Agreement, and the workload that is available as per the sanction of new courses will have to be reckoned for payment of salary and other benefits. Therefore, any objection regarding the same also cannot be pursued by respondents 2 and 3 in the matter. W.P.(C) No.34170/2007 4 Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Principal to resubmit the salary bills of the petitioner including arrears within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent will take appropriate action to disburse the admissible salary including arrears within a further period of six weeks. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp