IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3034 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANA ALEX, LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE) DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 3034 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in St.Stephen's College, Pathanapuram, which is an aided college. That appointment has already been approved by the University. The petitioner has become eligible for senior scale. The placement of the petitioner in the senior scale also has been approved by the University by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the salary due to the petitioner in the senior scale is not being disbursed by respondents 2 and 3. He would submit that in view of decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.Colleges [1998 (3) ILR 1], Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian Colleges [2007 (3) KLT 355] and State of Kerala v. Arun George [2009 (4) KLT 972], once the University approves the appointment and placement, the educational authority cannot deny salary to the teachers as per the approval. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He would submit that against the decision in Arun George's case (supra) the State has filed an appeal which is pending before the Supreme Court, in which there is a stay of contempt proceedings in that case. He would further submit that the Government disputes the validity of the approval granted by the University. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I do not think that in view of the Division Benches decisions of this Court, respondents 2 and 3 can be heard to contend that they would not 2 pay salary to the approved placement of the petitioner. If respondents 2 and 3 have a case that approval is irregular, it is for them to either take up the matter with the University or challenge the approval itself in appropriate proceedings. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary in the senior scale as per Ext.P1 approval. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to see that the salary due to the petitioner in the senior scale in accordance with Ext.P1 approval, with arrears, is paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. For that purpose the petitioner shall see that bills for the salary are submitted by the principal. However, I make it clear that this would not stand in the way of the Government or respondents 2 and 3 taking up the question of validity of Ext.P1 either by referring the matter to the University or by challenging the approval itself in appropriate proceedings. But as long as the approval stands, the petitioner shall be continued to be paid salary in the senior scale. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge