IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 27658 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. DR. ANCY MATHEW, LECTURER IN BOTANY, SREE SANKARA COLLEGE, KALADY. 2. DR. SUMI MARY GEORGE, LECTURER IN MICROBIOLOGY, SREE SANKARA COLLEGE, KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SREE SANKARA COLLEGE, KALADY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADAR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMOOD FOR R4 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, UGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27658/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DT 31.12.2004. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERISSUED BY THE MANAGER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DT 12.6.2006. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DT 20.10.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.44/2001/H.EDN DT 29.3.2001. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY DT 29.4.2000. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D. DGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM DT 5.4.2003. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-937/07 DT 18.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE U.G.C CELL/3RD RESPONDENT DT 9.12.2004. EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.3-1/2002(PS) DT 16.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE UGC. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF the LETTER NO.F.3-1/2002(PS) DT 15.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE UGC. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT 17.7.2007. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTHA DT 2.6.2003. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 7.1.2005 IN WPC NO.34803 OF 2004. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER OF THE INCREMENT TOSMT.VALSA A.K. BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT 15.10.2001. WPC NO.27658/07 -2- EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION COMMUNICTION DT 5.8.2005 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P12(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION COMMUNICATION DT 9.5.2007 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRICHUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 27658 OF 2007 (P) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The claim of the petitioners is for the benefit of four increments as provided in Clause 6.16 of the pay revision order, issued vide GO(P) No.171/1999(H.Edn) dated 21/12/1999. This provision provided for four advance increments to those who hold Ph.D at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. 2. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, Exts. P4 and P4(a) evidences that Ph.D was awarded to the petitioners on 29/4/2000 and 5/4/2003. By Exts.P1 and P1(a), they wee appointed by the 1st respondent w.e.f. 5/1/2005 and by Exts. P2 and P2(a), their appointment was approved by the University w.e.f. 10/1/2005 and 17/1/2005 respectively. Thus, evidently at the time of their appointment as Lecturers, petitioners were Ph.D holders, coming within the purview of Clause 6.16 referred to above. 3. However, Ext.P6(a) circular was issued by the UGC on 16/1/2003 quoting from their notification dated 31/7/02 that NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D degree and that candidates who have submitted WPC 27658/07 :2 : Ph.D thesis on or before 31/12/2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination and that such of those candidates will not be eligible for the benefit of advance increments. In pursuance to Ext.P6(a), based on Government letters, Ext.P6 was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the Government have informed him that the benefit of four advance increments is not admissible to those having Ph.D and recruited as Lecturers giving relaxation from NET. 4. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not passed NET and therefore their claim for increment was denied by Ext.P5 order dated 18/5/07 based on Exts. P6 and P6(a). Petitioners contend that by Ext.P7 dated 15th of July, 2003, the UGC had kept Ext.P6(a) in abeyance and therefore declining increments to them relying on Ext.P6(a) is incorrect. They submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Deputy Director, but there was no response. It is also their case that similar benefit has been given to certain other persons. 5. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that UGC notification by itself is not applicable to the petitioners unless and until the same has been adopted and implemented by the Government and notification is issued by it. It is stated that although the UGC have issued WPC 27658/07 :3 : Ext.P7 keeping in abeyance Ext.P6(a), Government have not issued any notification adopting and implementing Ext.P7. Therefore, according to him, disallowance of increments by Ext.P5 is valid. Learned Government Pleader contends that unless and until the Government adopts Ext.P7 and issues a notification, Ext.P7 will be inapplicable and the petitioners claim is not liable to the accepted. 6. In the absence of a notification adopting Ext.P7, petitioners cannot contend that Ext.P6(a) has ceased to be effective. Petitioners have no case that till date, Government have issued any notification as stated above. If that be so, in the face of Ext.P6(a), which still remains in force, this Court will not be justified in directing the Government to grant the increments as claimed by them. 7. However, fact remains that the UGC has issued Ext.P7 and the Government has been adopting the UGC notifications and implementing the same. The intention of incorporating Clause 6.16 of the pay revision order referred to above, is to give advance increments to Ph.D holders by way of incentive. Now that Ext.P6(a) has been withdrawn by Ext.P7, the matter needs to be considered by the 2nd respondent, who has to take a decision as to whether Ext.P7 deserves to be adopted and implemented in WPC 27658/07 :4 : the State. 8. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the question as to whether Ext.P7, keeping in abeyance Ext.P6(a) should be adopted and in case if it is adopted, the claim of the petitioners for increments as provided in Clause 6.16 of the pay revision order shall be considered by the 4th respondent and orders thereon shall be passed without any further delay. It will be open to the petitioners to move the 2nd and 4th respondents in this behalf, in which case, orders will be passed as directed above. If the petitioners file an application in this behalf to the 2nd respondent within 4 weeks from today, the decision shall be taken as directed above within 3 months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp