IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35965 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RENU THOMAS, LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE) DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. ADV .SRI. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, UTY OF KERALA FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35965/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner submits that she was appointed in leave vacancies for the period from 11.10.1989 to 4.9.1994, 28.10.1994 to 30.6.1995 and with effect from 8.1.1997 onwards in the St. Stephen's college. According to her while continuing from 8.1.1997, there arose a regular vacancy with effect from 1.6.2000. Accordingly, she was regularized against that vacancy. However, approval was granted by the University only for the period from 1.6.2000 onwards and even that has not been accepted by the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner has two complaints. One is regarding the order of the University in not approving her service prior to 1.6.2000 and other is regarding the non-payment of WP(c).No.35965/2008 2 the monetary benefits following the approval granted by the University. 4. In so far as the approval of the service prior to 1.6.2000 is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner submits that she is proposing to agitate her claim in independent proceedings and therefore that grievance is left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. 5. However, in so far as the claim for monetary benefits for the service from 1.6.2000 is concerned, the University has approved the same by Ext.P1. Since approval being binding on him, the 3rd respondent is bound to grant the consequential benefits. This position is clarified by the decisions of this court in Cherian Mathew V. Principal S.B. College Changanassery(1998(2)KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel V. Manager, Christian college (2007(3) KLT 355). Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall pass orders on the claim of the WP(c).No.35965/2008 3 petitioner based on Ext.P1, in the light of the judgments referred to above. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.35965/2008 4