IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13371 of 2007(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. S.ANIL KUMAR, LECTURER IN BOTANY, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, KOLLAM. 2. S.BAIJU, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, PUNALUR. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, S.N.TRUST, KOLLAM. R1, R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MT. DILIP MOHAN, R2 BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13371/2007-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. 2/SNT/9497 DTD. 08/03/1997 OF THE P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. 2/SNT/9502 DTD. 05/03/1997 OF THE P.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/04/2003 IN O.P. NO. 13150/2003. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5/4713/03 DTD. 15/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/11/2000 IN W.A. NO. 2780/1999 & O.P. NO. 17385/1999. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.20/2002/H. EDN. DTD. 01/02/2002. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 07/11/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.25117/2003. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5/9318/03 DTD. 21/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 13371 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Botany by the 5th respondent in colleges under the S.N. Trust. The 2nd petitioner was similarly appointed as a lecturer in Mathematics by Ext. P2 order on 5-3-1997. Their appointments were duly approved by the University. But they were not given UGC scale of pay. They filed a representation. This Court, by Ext. P3 judgment, directed the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam to dispose of that representation . The Deputy Director passed Ext. P4 order pursuant thereto, holding that since they were appointed only in the State scale of pay, they are not eligible for UGC scale of pay. In the meanwhile, another person, namely, one Mr. Santhoshlal, P.S, who was similarly appointed, challenged non-payment of salary to him, which resulted in Ext. P5 judgment of the Division Bench in O.P.No. 17385/1999, wherein this Court held that appointments prior to 3-6- 1997 and subsequent to 1-1-1996 cannot be affected by the legislation regarding de-linking of pre-degree and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was directed to disburse the salary due to the petitioner since his appointment was approved by the University. While so, by Ext. P6 order dated 1-2-2002, the Government directed that all appointments and placements made under the UGC scheme on or after 1-1-1996 shall be deemed to have been made in the revised scale of pay. The petitioners challenged Ext. P4 order in W.P(C) No. 25117 of 2003. In that writ petition, by Ext. P7 judgment, this Court directed the 4th respondent to look into the matter afresh with notice to the petitioners and the manager and afford a similar treatment to the petitioners herein also as was granted to Mr. P.S. Santhoshlal, the petitioner in Ext. P5 judgment, who, according to the petitioners, joined service along with them. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P8 order was W.P.C. No. 13371/2007 -: 2 :- passed again rejecting the claim of the petitioners holding that the petitioners were given the very same benefit as given to Mr. Santhoshlal. The petitioners challenge Ext. P8 order seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P8 order No. A5-9318/03 dated 21-3-2007 issued by the 4th respondent as it is illegal and void; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to fix the salary to the petitioners at Rs.8,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with effect from their date of appointment; (iii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get their salary fixed under the U.G.C. Scheme and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to release the arrears of salary and other benefits based on the fixation under the U.G.C. Scheme.” 2. According to the petitioners, Mr. Santhoshlal was given UGC scale of pay and the statement contrary to the same in Ext. P8 is wrong. It is also pointed out that in Ext. P8 order itself, it is stated that after the petitioners completed the required period of service, they were given placement in the senior scale of pay of Rs.10000- 15200, which would mean that they were actually appointed in the UGC post, if alone would they be entitled to the senior scale of pay. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to 3rd respondent, the petitioners were appointed as per the First Statutes 1979 applicable to them and they were only appointed in the State scale of pay. Therefore, they are not entitled to the UGC scale of pay as demanded by them. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. When, in 1991, the UGC scheme was implemented in the State of Kerala, the existing teachers were divided into two, viz. 52% in the UGC scale of pay and the balance in the State scale of pay. The 48% would be integrated into the UGC scale of pay after putting in W.P.C. No. 13371/2007 -: 3 :- the required number of years of service. Thereafter, all appointments made in aided colleges under the various Universities in Kerala could only have been in UGC scale. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on 8-3-1997 and 5-3-1997 after the UGC scheme was implemented in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the petitioners could have been appointed only in the UGC scale of pay. In fact, in Ext. P8, it is admitted that the petitioners, after completing the required period of service, were given placement in the senior scale of pay of Rs. 10000-15200. If they were to be given senior scale of pay after putting in the required number of years, necessarily, they should have been appointed in the UGC scale of pay, who only are entitled to placement in the senior scale of pay. That being so, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners are entitled to UGC scale of pay from the date of their appointment and revision of scale of pay as and when the UGC scale of pay was revised. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P8 orders are quashed. It is declared that the petitioners were appointed in the UGC scale of pay only. Consequently, they are entitled to payment of salary in the UGC scale of pay with effect from their date of appointment and fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay as and when UGC scales of pay were revised. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears of salary due to the petitioners disbursed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/