IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18932 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: P.GANGADHARAN, RETD. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, S/O.LATE P. PYTHAL, AGED 60, OMKARAM, P.O. OLLUKARA, THRISSUR-680 655, NOW RESIING AT K.A.U PROFESSORS' QUARTERS, NO.6/3, KAU.P.O, THRISSUR - 680 656. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR - 680 656. 2. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR - 680 656, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. By ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 18932/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF HE APPOINTMENT ORDE NO.GA/32317/A1/79(V) DT. 5.5.79 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/24983/89 DT. 1.9.89 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/23346/99(117) DT. 17.3.05 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/5790/2011 DT. 14.3.2011 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(P) 40/2002/H.EDN. DT. 30.4.02 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 17.9.07 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 16.6.08 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 18.6.08 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 28.7.09 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 28.8.10 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 7.3.2011 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. 12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 12.3.10 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND PRO CHANCELLOR EXT. P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 10.9.10 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND PRO CHANCELLOR EXT. P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 13.12.10 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE EXT. P15 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.F.NO.2-18/2001-AU(I) DT. 25.6.01 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI EXT. 16 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.F.NO.2-30/2001-AU(II) DT. 2.8.01 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI EXT. P17 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.F.NO.1/99-PER DT. 21.9.01 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TRIVANDRUM EXT. P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/21239/09 T. 15.7.09 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 14.1.10 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 3.2..2011 TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 8.3.2011 TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 16.4.11 TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE PHYSICAL PLANT, KAU EXT. P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT. P22 DT. 9.6.11 /TRUE COPY/ T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18932 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein retired from service of the University in April 2011. 2. The petitioner is seeking for various reliefs in this writ petition. He seeks for a direction to give due promotion, the monthly pension and other retirement benefits like Family Benefit Scheme, Surrender of Earned Leave, Gratuity and Provident Fund amount. Apart from that he is also seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue revised pay slip with effect from 9.5.1989 as Associate Professor and with effect from 9.5.1997 as Professor. Lastly, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to stay in the quarters for six months remitting the rent which he was paying earlier while in service. 3. The petitioner has got a total service of thirty two years at the time of his retirement. Petitioner was inducted to UGC as Associate Professor on 11.1.1990, according to the petitioner, instead of 9.5.1989. A copy of the order has been produced as Exhibit P3. Same was revised subsequently as per Exhibit P4 without changing the date WPC 18932/2011 2 of promotion already effected. According to the petitioner, he was also not given promotion on the due date and representations were filed as Exhibits P6 to P11 in the matter. Finally, he approached the Government by submitting representations as Exhibits P12 to P14. Exhibits P15 and P16 are the orders issued by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which are relied upon for claiming promotion as Professor. Further it is pointed out that the Redressal Committee has directed to place the matter before the Executive Committee. But that was not placed before the Executive Committee so far. 4. It is submitted that various pensionary benefits have not been released to the petitioner and because of that he is unable to shift from the quarters to the residential house which requires maintenance. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating various aspects. It is averred in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that petitioner, who entered service as Assistant Professor on 9.5.1979, was granted non cadre promotion on 9.5.1989 in the scale of `.1950- 2950 as per Exhibit P2 order. This non cadre promotion is like that of time bound grade promotions granted to the State Government employees in lieu of regular promotion. Petitioner was granted regular promotion as Associate Professor as per the then existing WPC 18932/2011 3 statute on 11.1.1990, i.e. on the date of application in the scale of `.2470-3050 as recommended by the screening committee. This was granted as per University Order No.GA/C2/22346/99(ii) dated 8.7.1999. In the very same order, he was inducted into the 1986 UGC Scheme as Associate Professor with effect from 11.1.1990. This promotion was granted on a date subsequent to the date of implementation of 1986 UGC Scheme. 6. His induction as Associate Professor is with effect from 11.1.1990, that too under the UGC Scheme in the scale of Rs.3700- 5700. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, a judgment of this Court is relied upon. But the details are not stated therein. 7. Finally, it is pointed out that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for as per the Rules. 8. With regard to the retirement benefits, in paragraph 11 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner's retirement claims are being processed as detailed below: a. Pensionary benefits are pending. Same was placed before the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit. On sanctioning the same, monthly pension can be disbursed forthwith or otherwise the petitioner has to apply for anticipatory pension, which can be sanctioned without audit effacement. In the case of DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension, seniority of WPC 18932/2011 4 the pensioner is to be looked into. This Hon'ble Court has directed the University to disburse pensionary benefits of those who retired in 2009 first and thereafter the petitioners in the said writ petition, who retired in 2010, be paid. The petitioner retired on 24.4.2011. The delay in payment of pensionary benefits is not purposeful but due to lack of funds. b. Application for closure of Provident Fund of the petitioner received in the University on 29.11.2010 and the petitioner is the eighth person to be sanctioned with the closure of Provident Fund. Applicants up to 16.9.2010 have been paid. c. For closure of Family Benefit Scheme, the petitioner has to submit application. d. Sanction of terminal surrender of earned leave is pending for certificate of eligibility by the Assistant Comptroller, Internal Audit Circle (Central Region).” 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that there cannot be any delay in disbursement of the Provident Fund amount. Evidently, the Provident Fund amount has to be disbursed on the retirement of the person concerned and there cannot be any adjustment with regard to the same. The learned standing counsel submitted that when financial difficulties arose for payment of the monthly salary, amount was withdrawn from the Provident Fund account as permitted by the Government. WPC 18932/2011 5 10. The statement shows that disbursement of the Provident Fund depends upon the seniority fixed and petitioner is stated to be the eighth person for closure of the Provident Fund account. Learned standing counsel sought for sufficient time for disbursing the said amount also. But, as the amount had to be disbursed to the petitioner at the time of retirement, the time as sought for by the University cannot be granted, learned counsel for the petitioner submits. Having regard to the position explained by the learned standing counsel, I am of the view that there can be a direction to disburse the Provident Fund amount within a period of two months from today. 11. What remains is the claim for promotion to the post of Professor as well as the amount under Family Benefit Scheme. With regard to the said claim, petitioner will immediately file a proper application. With regard to the claim for promotion and any other reliefs petitioner is seeking, he will be free to move appropriate authority by way of representations. If representations are filed, same will be entertained and claim will be considered on merits and appropriate reply will be given to the petitioner within a period of three months. With regard to the claim made in Exhibits P6 to P11, it is pointed out that petitioner has not received any reply so far. If that be so, same will be considered and reply with be given to the WPC 18932/2011 6 petitioner by the competent authority within a period of three months. 12. One of the surviving contention is regarding the occupation of the quarters. It is pointed out by the learned standing counsel that petitioner has been allowed to occupy the quarters up to 31.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that standard rate of rent is demanded from him which will be on a higher side that the service rent payable. Petitioner is compelled to stay in the quarters evidently because of non payment of the pensionary benefits. His grievance in the matter will be considered by the appropriate authority on the petitioner filing a representation. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already filed a representation on 19.5.2011. Same will be considered in accordance with the Rules and reply will be given to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge) tkv