IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1634 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.11504/1997 Dated 25/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE), DEPARTMENT OF ACQUATIC BIOLOGY & FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR.(MRS) TRESA VICTORIA FERNANDEZ, READER, DEPT OF ACQUATIC BIOLOGY & FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.NO: 1634 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st August, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries of the University of Kerala on 1.1.1985. By Ext.P1, Government introduced UGC scheme for the teachers of the colleges in the State. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, teachers like the petitioner were governed by the Merit Promotion Scheme for career advancement. But, later, by Exts.P2 and P3 orders scales of pay were equalised. The petitioner and other teachers were given option to come back to the Merit Promotion Scheme, provided the excess amount received by them under the UGC scheme is refunded. Petitioner did not refund the amount and he did not apply for re-option whereas the second respondent opted for re-option of the similar promotion scheme. Ext.P5 is not a general order relating to all persons who joined service between 17.6.1987 and 1.4.1990. Petitioner has not produced the same to prove that such persons were not liable to refund the excess amount drawn by them. Ext.P5 was issued to one Dr.Mohanadasan Nair. He is not a party to the writ petition. Such a contention was denied by the University. In any W.A. NO: 1634/08 2 event, petitioner did not opt to come back to the new branch. Second respondent who opted to the scheme got benefit of the scheme. We see no ground to interfere. Writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: