IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 13131 of 2008(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RANGAN V.V., VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AVANUR P.O., MUNDUR VIA., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POMOLOGY AND FLORICULTURE, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSOCIATE DEAN, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 5. INDAIN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI, FOR R5 SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13131 OF 2008 (L) ==================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who was a Research Assistant on daily wages in the Kerala Agricultural University for the period from 01/04/98 to 3/8/2000 is claiming the benefit of revision of his emoluments based on the order dated 15/7/2000. It is also his case that the ICAR had sanctioned additional amounts to the University for payment due to him and that the University having received the amount payable to the petitioner, has no reason to withhold the same. 2. The stand of the University is that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of pay revision. According to them, he was engaged only on daily wage basis and that the amount that is payable to him has been paid. It is stated that being an employee on daily wage basis, petitioner was not entitled to revision of pay effected by the University in 2000. 3. When the case came up before this court on 26/8/2008 referring to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the additional amount payable to the petitioner has been paid to the University by the ICAR and that the amount is withheld by it, counsel for the University was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. WPC 13131/08 :2 : 4. Today, when the matter came up for orders, on instructions, the counsel has submitted that the ICAR has not made any payment towards the additional liability of the petitioner arising out of pay revision. I record the submission. If this be the factual position, the University having not received money payable to the petitioner from ICAR cannot be expected to discharge the liability. 5. For these reasons, I see no infirmity with Ext.P8 order passed by the University rejecting his claim following the judgment of this court in WP(C) No.7786/04. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp