IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1459 of 2006(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13777/2006 OF THIS COURT APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER:- -------------- SRI.SHANKARAN.K., S/O.KUNHAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, PEON, CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEEDA, BALUSSERY. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI-5. 2. THE RSHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN, DEEMED UNIVERSITY, 57-58 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI, BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR/ DIRECTOR. 3. THE CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEEDA, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BALUSSERY, CALICUT. 4. CALICUT ADARSHA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEEDA, BALUSSERY, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ADV. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.N.M.MADHU,SC,RASHTRIYA SANKRI SD UT FOR R2 & R3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2108 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.A.Nos.1459/2006 2108/2006 and 2542/1999and W.P.(C) Nos.34583/2004, 34043/2006, 33891/2007 and 12594/2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This bunch of writ appeals and writ petitions is being disposed of by this common judgment, since the basic issues involved in them are common and closely interrelated. 2. The appellants and the petitioners in these cases are members of teaching and non-teaching staff of Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyapeetha at Balusserry in Kozhikode district. Their grievances stem from the alleged unequal treatment meted out to them in the matter of promotional avenues, age of retirement, retiral benefits including pension etc. by the parent body under which the institution is functioning viz., Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan established under the auspices of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. 3. Before we deal with the grievances highlighted by WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 2 these employees, it would be appropriate to take a brief look at the history of establishment of Adarsh Sanskrit Pathshalas, which later became Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyapeethas. 4. It appears that Ministry of Education and Social Welfare under the Government of India promulgated a Scheme for establishment of Adarsh Sanskrit Pathshalas in the country, with the avowed object to support and promote Sanskrit learning and research. It was envisaged that the pathshalas will be under the management of a voluntary organization and that no institution under this scheme shall be approved for grant-in-aid unless its management was re- constituted on the lines mentioned in the scheme, a copy of which is available on record as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No. 34043/2006. 5. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the various clauses contained in Ext.P1 Scheme, since the Government thereafter came out with modified guidelines/regulations governing the management of the affairs of these institutions. WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 3 6. However, we may refer to the Scheme brought out by the Ministry of Human Resources Development in 1993 governing the modalities for grant of financial assistance to the institutions recognized as Adarsha Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas/Sodha Sansthans (for short the scheme). It is provided in the Scheme that institutions like Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyapeethas would get financial assistance from the Government of India to the extent of 95% towards recurring expenses, and to the extent of 75% towards non- recurring expenses. It is further provided that these institutions shall be administered by a Managing Committee consisting of a nominee of the Government of India to be its Chairman, and one Sanskrit Scholar to be nominated by the Government of India, one nominee of the State Government, one nominee of the University to which the institution is affiliated, one nominee of the Parent Society/Trust as its members. The Principal/Director of the institution shall act as the Principal Secretary. 7. It is also inter alia provided in the Scheme (Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 34043/2006) that all persons employed in WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 4 teaching as well as non-teaching posts in the institutions receiving financial assistance under this scheme, shall be the employees of the Managing Committee of the institution, and not of the Government of India. However, being the major contributor of fund to these institutions, the Government is empowered to issue broad guidelines to the Managing Committees. The committees which receive financial assistance under the scheme as well as those which may be taken on the grant-in-aid list in future are expected to frame and adopt service rules in conformity with the guidelines mentioned above. 8. As has been indicated above, the primary grievance of the appellants and petitioners is that there is no uniform retirement age, as far as the employees of Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyapeethas in Kerala are concerned, as compared to the retirement age of other similarly placed employees in other parts of the country. The second grievance is that the teaching staff of these institutions do not have any promotional avenues and the third is that they are not getting any retiral benefits. WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 5 9. It is pointed out by Sri. K.R.B.Kaimal, learned senior counsel who appears for the petitioners that in Kerala the teaching and non-teaching staff of Adarsha Sanskrit Vidyapeethas are bound to retire at the age of 55 whereas in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Karnataka, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Uttarkhand the teaching staff can continue up to the age of 60. Non- teaching staff in majority of the States referred to above, can continue up to 60 or 58. In Jharkhand and Bihar the teaching staff can continue up to the age of 62 whereas non-teaching staff in Bihar are entitled to continue up to 62 and in Jharkhand up to the age of 60. Learned senior counsel submits that this anomalous situation was brought to the notice of the Sansthan and Union of India on several occasions; but unfortunately this burning issue has not been addressed by any of the authorities so far. 10. The contention of the respondent Sansthan is that the Scheme in unambiguous terms has made it clear that the age of retirement of the teaching and non teaching staff of Adarsh Sanskrit Vidhyapeethas or Mahavidyalayas shall WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 6 be governed by the retirement age of similarly placed staff in the institutions under the respective State Governments. These employees come under the control of the Managing Committee of the institution concerned. It is further pointed out that financial assistance or grant-in-aid is being provided to these institutions on the strength of the financial scheme formulated by the Government of India as could be seen from Ext.P7. In short it is contended by Sri.George Thomas learned senior counsel who appears for the Sansthan and P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General who represents the Union of India, that it is preposterous for the petitioners to contend that they have to be treated as employees of the Central Government and allowed to retire on par with the age of retirement of either the Central Government employees or employees of some other States where the age of retirement is relatively high. The specific case of the respondent Sansthan is that as long as these employees are governed by the Scheme, they have to abide by the provisions contained in the relevant Scheme and the guidelines. WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 7 11. It is true that clause 7 in the Scheme stipulates that “the age of retirement of teaching and non teaching staff shall be such as is applicable to corresponding staff employed in Graduate/Post Graduate degree colleges run by respective State Governments”. The appellants and petitioners do not have a case that they are not governed by the Scheme framed by the Union of India and the guidelines issued from time to time. 12. But it is significant to note that the Scheme itself provides that the Managing Committee will be at liberty to frame rules with prior approval of the Union of India. It is on record that the Calicut Adarsha Sanskrit Vidyapeetha had framed a set of service bye-laws and forwarded the same to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (for short the Sansthan), the parent body, for its approval. However, the Sansthan took the view that the bye-laws adopted by the Managing Committee were in contravention of the provisions contained in the guidelines appended to the Scheme and therefore, they were not acceptable. A copy of the communication dated January 12, 2005 issued by the WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 8 Sansthan in this regard is available on record as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No. 34043/2006. 13. In 2010 the Managing Committee of the Calicut Adarsha Sanskrit Vidyapeetha prepared yet another set of service rules and forwarded the same to the Sansthan for approval, as resolved by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on April 3, 2010. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting is produced and marked as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No. 33891/2007. But, in response to the request made by the Managing Committee to approve the new set of service rules, the Sansthan sent Ext.P15 communication dated September 23, 2010 which, among others, indicated that “framing of rules common to all the Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas is under consideration”. 14. Needless to mention, the decision to frame service rules was taken by a duly constituted Managing Committee consisting of representative of not only the Union of India but other members as stipulated in the Scheme. Therefore, the Sansthan ought to have given due weight to the resolution passed by the Managing Committee. In any view WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 9 of the matter the casual approach made by the Sansthan is not justifiable at all, to say the least. 15. It has been noticed already that the appellants and petitioners have tried to ventilate their grievances on two earlier occasions. But apparently, the response of the Sansthan has been rather lukewarm or casual. Exts.P9 and P15 to which we have referred in the earlier part of this judgment, will stand testimony to this. The response of the Sansthan in Ext.P15 in particular, clearly indicates that framing of a new set of rules, common to all the Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas is under consideration. Neither the learned Assistant Solicitor General who appears for the Union of India nor the learned senior counsel Sri.George Thomas who appears for the Sansthan was in a position to inform us as to what further steps have been taken by the Sansthan or the Union of India in this regard. In short it is apparent that the Sansthan has not taken any pro-active steps to redress the grievance of the appellants and petitioners who have been serving the institution for well over three decades. In our view, the authorities concerned WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 10 have to be given a wake up call. They must necessarily take a decision in the matter expeditiously. 16. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this bunch of writ appeals and writ petitions with a direction to the authorities concerned namely, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education under the Government of India and the Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi or such other competent authority to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. It will be open to the appellants/petitioners or their organization to submit a detailed representation, if so advised, before the authorities concerned highlighting their grievances. The representation shall be submitted within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. If the seventh petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 34043/2006 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12594/2010 are WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 11 continuing in service on the strength of the interim orders passed in the above cases they shall be allowed to remain in service till a final decision is taken by the competent authority as indicated earlier. They shall be entitled to draw salary for the period they have worked. Writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn. WA 1459/2006 & con. cases 12 A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.A.Nos.1459/2006 2108/2006 and 2542/1999and W.P.(C) Nos.34583/2004, 34043/2006, 33891/2007 and 12594/2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= JUDGMENT 15th day of June, 2011