IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 5165 of 2002(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.KRISHNAN, AGED 52, S/O.LATE APPU, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL CENTRE, KOCHI, RESIDING AT 35/1195/B, `DIVYA', INDIRA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN-25. BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMNT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI. 4. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL CENTRE, COCHIN. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR GRANTING SENIOR/ SELECTION GRADE TO ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTORS, THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI. MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR , ASST. SC FOR R1 BY MR. B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 MR.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2, R3 & R5 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.5165/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER, VIDE NO.F.NO.AD/2/NA/0975/888364 DT. 24.1098 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER FOR REVISED WORK ALLOCATION W.E.F. 12.8.91 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P3:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NOP.RD/01/93 DT. 1.11.93 FOR REVISED WORK ALLOCATION ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P4:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER FOR REVISED WORK ALLOCATION WITH EFFECT FROM 2.5.94 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P5:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 10.5.96 FOR WORK ALLOCATION OF THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER, VIDE NO.F.NO.TA/1/271/96/1190 DT. 4.12.96. ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.603 DT. 24.3.98 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P8:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR, VIDE NO.TA/2/14/90/396 DT. 7.6.94 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPERN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 5.3.998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY , NEW DELHI. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.IG/TA/1/271/96/102 DT. 4.5.98. ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI TO THE PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F.NO.2-130/AC/2001/6293 DT. 6.11.01 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 15.5.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI. P13:- COPY OF THE INCREMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P14:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.1467 DT. 21.12.98 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY NEW DELHI. OP. NO.5165/2002 P15:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 30.12.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND THE DIRECTOR AND A COPY ENDORSED TO REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. P16:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 10.2.99 OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO THE DIRECTOR, ALONG WITH REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER. P17:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 10.3.99 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR ALONG WITH REPRESENTATION. P18:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 6.11.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P19:- COPY OF THE ORDER, VIDE NO.F.NO.IG/TA/1/271/96/6534 DT. 7.12.01 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY , NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.5165 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 30th Day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Regional Director of the 2nd respondent University, approached this Court challenging Exts.P10 and P19 orders of the 2nd respondent by which his claim for senior scale applicable to Lecturer/ARD was rejected. 2. It is pointed out that as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar, a Group A post and as there was no post for Assistant Registrar, he was entrusted with the duty of Assistant Regional Director which is also a Group A post. On the strength of Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5, it is the contention of the petitioner that Assistant Registrar is also an academic post. According to the petitioner, when the University notified the post of Assistant Regional Director for appointment, he had applied and accordingly, he was appointed as per Ext.P6. Thereafter, he sought to fix the O.P.5165/2002. -:2:- scale of pay as senior scale of pay as he had completed the required qualification. But as per Ext.P10 order, the request was declined. Again he preferred Ext.P12 representation. Thereafter the University issued Ext.P13 order by which his request was allowed and paid the basic scale of pay Rs.3000 - 5000/-. In the meanwhile the University has implemented the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendation of pay revision and the University fixed his scale of pay of Rs.8000- 275-13500 as per Ext.P14. But according to the petitioner, as he was paid a basic scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/-, he is entitled to get the scale of pay at the rate of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15200. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, he made Exts.P15 and P16 representations and finally, Ext.P19 order was passed by the University rejecting the claim. The only sentence contained in Ext.P19 is that “However, the committee did not recommend his case for placement in Senior Scale”. Ext.P19 order consists of 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph is O.P.5165/2002. -:3:- only a single line sentence which shows the subject matter. As per second paragraph, it is informed him that his request was placed before the Committee constituted for the purpose of consideration and it is further stated that the Committee did not recommend his case for placement in Senior Scale. The petitioner has got various contentions in support of his claim. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent justifying the stand taken by the University and raising certain grounds in support of such stand. 5. The University being an autonomous body and a public Institution, is expected to pass a speaking order. The approach made as per Ext.P19 is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a speaking order. The contentions raised by the petitioner for his claim has not been referred in the order and also no reason is assigned for rejecting the claim. 6. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that without entering into the merits of the contentions of O.P.5165/2002. -:4:- both the parties, this writ petition can be disposed of by remitting back the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking order. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the contentions of both the petitioner as well as University, the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. In order to enable the University to pass a fresh order, Ext.P19 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- O.P.5165/2002. -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. 5165 of 2002 JUDGMENT Dated:30.6.2009.