IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30107 of 2005(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE COMPTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 3. THE SENIOR DEPUTY COMPTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, AGRL.UNTY. MR.K.P.MUJEEB, SC AGRL.UNTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.RAGHUNATHAN, LOTUS VILA, NAMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.G.PADMAKUMARI, TC 49/306, KAMALESHWARAM, MANAKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.O.ABDUL RAHIMANKUNJU, PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTUKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM-690 502. 5. DR.G.BALAKRISHNAN PILLA, AYSWARYA, PANAVILAJUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. *ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED. 6. DR.P.SARASWATHY, PERUMPILAVIL, ARYA CENTRAL SCHOOL LANE, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 05.11.2009 IN IA.7819/07 IN WPC. NO.30107/2005 R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.D.KISHORE R5 BY MR.D.KISHORE R6 BY ADV. MR.V.JAYAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30107/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE OPTION & UNDERTAKING DTD. 29.4.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE OPTION & UNDERTAKING DT. 10.3.2000. P3:- COPY OF THE OPTION & UNDERTAKING DTD. 14.3.2000. P4:- COPY OF THE OPTION DTD. 13.3.2000. P5:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.17.8.01 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.636/01 DTD. 12.11.01 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.637/01 DTD. 12.11.01 PASSED BYTHE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.638/01 DTD. 12.11.01 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.639/01 DTD. 12.11.01 PASSED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 5.2.03 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 21.6.04. P12:- COPY OF THE GOVT. COMMUNICATION DTD. 21.8.03. P13:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12.11.04. P14:- COPY OF THE GOVT. COMMUNICATION DTD. 10.1.05. P15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 6395/05 DTD. 23.2.05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P16:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA. NO.25/03 DT. 9.3.05. P17:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 30.3.05. P18:- COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA IN IA. 24/03 IN COMPLAINT NO.636/01 DTD. 9.9.05. P19:- COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA IN IA. 25/03 IN COMPLAINT NO.637/01 DTD. 9.9.05. P20:- COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA IN IA. 26/03 IN COMPLAINT NO.638/01 DTD. 9.9.05. P21:- COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA IN IA. NO.27/03 IN COMPLAINT NO.639/01 DTD. 9.9.05. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30107 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are respectively the Registrar, Comptroller and Senior Deputy Comptroller of the Kerala Agricultural University. They are aggrieved by Exhibits P18 to P21 orders passed by the Lok Ayukta whereby they were directed to file an action taken report on or before 26.10.2005 failing which they shall appear in person before the forum on that day at 11 a.m in the Ernakulam Guest House. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the Lok Ayukta has no power to pass orders like Exhibits P18 to P21 in the light of the decision of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Bernard (2002(3)KLT 254). It is the contention of the petitioners that Lok Ayukta has no power to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioners. The circumstances under which this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners are the following: W.P.(C) No.30107/2005 2 3. The respondents 2 to 5 were working as Professors in the University. After their retirement, the Local Fund Audit raised an objection regarding their entitlement for benefits under UGC scheme as they had opted out earlier. They got promotions and induction to the UGC scheme, and they had approached the Lok Ayukta for sanction of payment of arrears of salary and other retirement benefits. Exhibits P6 to P9 are the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta in the complaints filed by respondents 2 to 5. Basically, in all these complaints, monetary benefits have been granted by way of revision of pension and salary in terms of UGC/IC AR scale. The petitioners challenged the same before this Court in W.P.(C)No.6395/2005, which was dismissed as per Exhibit P15 judgment. The challenge was repelled mainly on the ground of delay as the writ petition was filed after a long period of four years. The contention that the Lok Ayukta has no power to initiate contempt proceedings was allowed to be raised before the Lok Ayukta itself. After hearing the parties, Lok Ayuka passed Exhibits P18 to P21 orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the W.P.(C) No.30107/2005 3 decision in State of Kerala vs. Bernard (2002 (3) KLT 254), submitted that Lok Ayukta has no power to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 submitted that in Exhibits P18 to P21 orders, the Lok Ayukta has only directed the petitioners herein to file action taken reports and therefore, this Court need not go into the question whether Lok Ayukta has power to punish them for contempt or not. It is also pointed out that as Exhibits P6 to P9 orders have become final, going by Exhibit P15 judgment of this Court, the petitioners cannot challenge those orders in these proceedings. It is further submitted that the issue raised by the petitioners is also covered against them in the light of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.20968/2003, which was upheld in Writ Appeal No.1930/2004. 5. The prayer (c) in this writ petition is to quash Exhibits P6 to P9. Since Exhibits P6 to P9 are orders passed in the year 2001 and were not challenged at the right point of time, earlier writ petition filed by them stands dismissed as per Exhibit P15. W.P.(C) No.30107/2005 4 Therefore, in the light of the said judgment, the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition so as to challenge Exhibits P6 to P9 again. Therefore, the third prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted at all. Exhibits P6 to P9 have thus became final. In Exhibits P18 to P21, the Lok Ayukta has directed to file action taken reports only. No orders have been passed in exercise of the power to initiate contempt proceedings evidently. In that view of the matter, the challenge against Exhibits P18 to P21 also fails. 6. The question raised by the audit is now covered against the petitioners in the light of the judgment in W.A.No.1930/2004. In W.P.(C) No.20968/2003, a similar question was considered, which stands confirmed in the above Writ Appeal. The question was whether the persons like respondents 2 to 5 who had opted out of the UGC scheme can be permitted to go over to the scheme on the ground that there is no provision for re-option. In paragraph 2 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20968/2003, it was held thus: “........Therefore, the only reason that the petitioner had opted out of the scheme in 1988 W.P.(C) No.30107/2005 5 cannot be posed as a ground for not permitting the petitioner to go over to the scheme after Ext.P1 order dated 12-3-2001 whereby alone the petitioner was given the promotion prior to 1-2-1988”. 7. The said view stands confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1930/2004. In that view of the matter, as the said aspect is also covered by the said judgment, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 prayed that a direction may be issued to the University to disburse the eligible benefits to respondents 2 to 5 in terms of Exhibits P6 to P9 orders passed by the Lok Ayukta as the matter had been pending for the last eight years. In that view of the matter, the petitioners will disburse the eligible benefits to respondents 2 to 5 within a period of three months from today. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp