IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37671 of 2007(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- P.RAMESH KUMAR, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, SWAMI NITHYANADA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, SWAMI NITHYANADA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 23. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37671 of 2007(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SNP:152:EST:92 DATED 16.07.1992 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 912/79 (118) FIN DATED 04.10.1979 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) 862/80 (256) FIN DATED 11.11.1980 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) 129/81 (296) FIN DATED 20.02.1981 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 38/85/H.EDN DATED 25.02.1985 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS) 163/95/H.EDN. DT. 09.07.1985 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.21.12.2005 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.07.02.2006 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.53006/PRC-B3/07/FIN DT. 30.06.2007 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DP(6)/123246/98 DATED 29.07.1998 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.(P) NO. 145/2006/FIN DT.25.03.2006 -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 37671 of 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a lecturer in mathematics, working in an Aided Private Polytechnic College. Exhibit P1 is the copy of appointment order of the petitioner. On an earlier occasion, petitioner approached this court and filed W.P(C). No.35579/2005 claiming parity in the matter of pay scale with lecturers in Private Aided Arts & Science Colleges. That writ petition was disposed of vide Exhibit P7 allowing the petitioner to file a representation before the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent was directed to consider the same. Accordingly, petitioners filed Exhibit P8, where he sought parity with lecturers in the private aided Arts and Science Colleges. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Government as per Exhibit P9. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash Exhibit P9 and a direction is sought against the 5th respondent for giving pay on a par with the lecturers in private Aided Arts and Science Colleges. 2. However, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to Exhibit P2 to P6 orders W.P(C) No. 37671/2007 2 issued by the Government extending the benefit of non-cadre promotion to the teaching staff in the Technical Education Department According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the benefit of non-cadre promotion so introduced. However, what is noticed is that the claim raised before the Government in Exhibit P8 was one for parity with the lecturers in the Private Aided Arts and Science Colleges. This obviously means that the claim was for scale of pay introduced by the U.G.C scheme. What is now claimed by the petitioner is not the benefit of U.G.C scheme, but the benefit of non-cadre promotion introduced by Exhibits P2 to P6. Obviously, the Government have not considered the claim and therefore, it is for the petitioner to urge his claim before the 4th respondent and it is for the 4th respondent to pass orders therein. Therefore, I direct if the petitioner makes a representation as above, that will be dealt with by the 4th respondent in the light of Exhibits P2 to P6 and in terms of the Government orders that governing the same. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm