IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 19679 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUSAN MATHEW, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN SMT.ASHA CHERIAN SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, ST. THOMAS COLLEGE, KOZHENCHERRY. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, (HIGHER EDUCATION) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED FOR SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC, MG UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19679 OF 2008 (P) ==================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Lecturer in the St.Thomas College, Kozhenchery. During the period from 89-97, petitioner had rendered broken service for various spells of time. Finally, regular appointment was given to the petitioner, effective from 01/04/99. Taking into account the service, including the broken service rendered by the petitioner prior to her regular appointment, on her completion of 7 years service, senior scale was granted to the petitioner effective from 9/2/97. This was approved by the University as per Ext.P2. When the 1st respondent objected to the same and sought clarification from the University, responding to the querry raised by the 1st respondent, University gave Ext.P7 reply reiterating the approval granted by Ext.P2 and relying on Ext.P8 Government order dated 24/12/96 in support of their stand. Despite this, the 1st respondent did not countersign the salary bills and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that entitlement of a person for higher scale commences only on WPC 19679/08 :2 : regular appointment and therefore petitioner could have claimed senior scale only subsequent to 01/04/99 when she was appointed on a regular basis. Yet another contention raised is that teachers who are continuing without sufficient workload are not entitled to senior scale. Ext.R1(c) Government order has been relied on in support of this plea. 3. In so far as the first objection that the petitioner could have claimed senior scale only subsequent to 01/04/99 is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader. As is evident from Ext.R1(a), UGC benefits are available to those who are appointed on a regular basis against permanent vacancies and it may be possible for the teacher to claim that her prior service should also be reckoned. But such a claim can be made only after regular appointment has been granted and therefore, even if broken period of previous service should also be counted, senior scale can be effective only after regular appointment. 4. In this case, regular appointment was granted to the petitioner only from 01/04/99. Despite this, reckoning the broken period of service rendered by the petitioner, senior scale has been granted to the petitioner effective from 9/2/97. This has been approved by the University by Ext.P2 and the 1st respondent was perfectly justified in raising a querry on this. Therefore, this certainly is a matter for the University to WPC 19679/08 :3 : reconsider. 5. In so far as the other plea raised by the respondents that in the absence of sufficient workload, the petitioner cannot claim senior scale, I should confess my inability to accept this contention. This is all the more so for the reason that this issue is covered against the University by several judgments rendered by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available before me a copy of the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.5533/06 where a learned Judge has overruled this contention relying on the judgment in WA No.2594/05 dated 5/7/06. If that be so, that objection needs to be overruled and I do so. In the result, writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the University shall reconsider the effective date of approval granted by Ext.P2 and depending upon the clarification to be given by the University, the 1st respondent shall countersign the salary bills of the petitioner and effect payment on that basis. The University shall pass orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment and based on that, without any further delay, the 1st respondent shall do the needful in this matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp