IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32450 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MATHEW.J.MATTAM, S/O.JOSEPH.J.MATTAM, LECTURER SENIOR SCALE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS ST.BERCHMANS COLLEGE,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.S.SAIJU SRI.T.R.SUGUNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R2 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32450/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BV(2)/692/2004 DT 26.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.AC.B.V.1-798-05 DT 19.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 16.10.2008 IN WPC NO.5001/07 AND 18911/07 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 32450 OF 2007 (K) ==================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is presently a Lecturer, who has been placed in the Senior Scale. Prior to his regular appointment, the petitioner had rendered broken service in the St.Berchmans College, Changanacherry itself during the period 28/9/94 to 31/3/95. Thereafter, he commenced his regular service w.e.f. 16/6/98. 2. According to the petitioner, these appointments were approved by the University. Subsequently, giving credit to his broken service also and acting on the strength of Ext.P2 University order, he was placed in the Senior Scale w.e.f. 13/12/2002. It is stated this has been declined to be acted upon by the Deputy Director as according to him, the broken service rendered by the petitioner is not liable to be reckoned. It is with that grievance the writ petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgments rendered by the Division Bench in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanacherry (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Mager, Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355) as also Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this Court following the earlier Division Bench judgments. WPC 32450/07 :2 : 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the 2nd respondent has sought clarification about the eligibility of the petitioner to have reckoned broken service rendered by him for placement in the senior scale. According to the learned Government Pleader, such a clarification was sought by the 2nd respondent, by his letter No.C3/463/05 dated 28/4/2005 and that clarification is still awaited. It is stated that as and when the clarification is received from the University, a decision on the claim of the petitioner will be taken in the light of the clarification so furnished. 5. In the judgments rendered to above, this Court has already held that ordinarily the 2nd respondent will be bound by the placement and its approval granted by the University. It has also been held that should he entertain any doubt, the course open to the 2nd respondent is to obtain appropriate clarification from the University and this precisely is the course that the 2nd respondent had adopted by addressing letter dated 28/4/05 to the University. The 2nd respondent having sought clarification from the University, the University should offer clarification in response to the query that it has received. According to the 2nd respondent, such a reply has not been received and the counter affidavit filed by the University is WPC 32450/07 :3 : conspicuously silent on this aspect. 6. In these circumstances, I feel that what is appropriate is to direct the University to furnish clarification in response to the query received from the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 28/4/05. This the University shall furnish, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the clarification as above, without any further delay and at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall take a final decision in this matter. Once a decision is taken, steps will be taken for releasing the monetary benefits that are due. 7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp