IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 13606 of 2000(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.P.K.JOSEPH, S/O.LATE P.K.KURIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAMPALLIL, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 562. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM – 8. 4. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.V.K.MUHAMMAD YOUSUF, SC, M.G.UTY. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R1 & R2 BY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 13606/2000 ORDER ON CMP NO.22137/2000 IN O.P.NO. 13606/2000 DISMISSED. 12/03/2008 SD/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20/02/1996 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/02/1996. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/04/1996 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/05/1996 SENT BY THE PETIITONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 21/11/1996 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE REVISED ENHANCEMENT OF PAY ORDER DATED 14/11/1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/10/1997 IN O.P.NO. 2733/1997-A BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/09/1999 IN WA NO.54/1998 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P9 : COPY OF THE BROCHURE FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 OF THE SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION. P10 : COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETIITONERS. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- O.P. No. 13606 of 2000 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The substantial relief sought for in the writ petition is for granting equal pay to the petitioner in par with UGC scale to the Professors in the Universities, for the work rendered by him in M.G.University as Professor of Bio-Chemistry and Head of Department in a faculty of Medical Bio-Chemistry. 2. In fact, the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing O.P.No.2733/97, which was dismissed by Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner was appointed on a contract basis as per order dated 20/05/1995. Subsequently, it was extended vide Ext.P1 and the contract period was extended by two years. After noticing the terms of the contract, this Court held in Ext.P7 that he is governed by the terms of the contract and therefore, there cannot be any scope for an argument of discrimination in the matter of contract appointments. 3. He filed writ appeal No.54/98 against Ext.P7. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same with a direction that notwithstanding the dismissal of the original petition, the representation, Ext.P4, can be considered. Thereafter, the O.P.NO. 13606/2000 -2- University considered the same and gave a reply by Ext.P10 rejecting the same. 4. It is a case where the petitioner was appointed on payment of honorarium on the basis of a contract appointment, which was initially fixed as Rs.5,000/- per month and was revised to Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner was not a regularly appointed person coming within the regular cadre of Professors, Department Heads etc. The U.G.C. scale applies to such posts held on a regular basis. The petitioner being a contract appointee cannot, therefore, claim equal pay to that of the Professors or Department Heads etc., who are appointed on a regular basis. He will be governed by the terms of Ext.P1 and other agreements. Having accepted the terms of appointment, he cannot later on turn around and contend for more benefits which are not covered by the agreements in question. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg