IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 20452 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LINCY ALEX, D/O.THOMAS CHANDI, URUMBACKAL HOUSE, NERCHAPPARA, ERUMELI. FORMERLY, GUEST LECTURER IN AGRICULTURAL, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE, VAIKOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, KOTHUVARA PO, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MANAGER, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE, VAIKOM, KOTHAVARA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECOTRATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. W.P.(C) NO.20452/2006 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1&2 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R1&2 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R1&2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER , SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R.3,4,6 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13251 OF 2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c) NO.20452/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.7.2001 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND AQUACULTURE CERTIFYING PETITIONER'S SERVICE FROM 23.7.2001 TO 31.3.2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WORKLOAD STATEMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.UGC CELL I(1) 2118/2000 DT.19.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 SERIES: COPY OF THE DUTY CERTIFICATES ISSUED CERTIFYING THAT PETITIONER HAD WORKED AS EXAMINER FOR THE UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.15.2.2006 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF ORDER U.O.NO.AC.A1/1/AFFN/98 DT.13.11.1998 ISSUED BY M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.12.8.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.482/2005. EXT.R3(a): COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.146/97/H.EDN.DT.17.10.1997. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.78/2001 H.EDN.DT.11.7.2001. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF LR.NO.UGC CELL I(i)35999/2002(ii) dt.16.10.2003. //TRUE COPYH// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20452 OF 2006 & 13251 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.P.(C) No.20452 OF 2006 The petitioner was a Guest Lecturer in Zoology engaged by the 1st respondent College. She worked for 28 months between 23.7.2001 and 31.3.2004. She claimed remuneration for the period she has worked. But, when the Government did not release it, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The stand of the Government is that this particular course, for which the petitioner was appointed, was sanctioned by the Government without any additional financial commitment to it. In other words, if additional teachers are appointed, the Government will not pay salary to them. The Government relies on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George [2008(1)KLT 195] in support of the stand taken by them. We have gone through that decision. We are in respectable agreement with the view taken by this Court in that judgment. But, the petitioner is entitled to get the salary. Since the W.P.(C) No.20452/2006 & 13251/2007 2 Government is not willing to pay the salary, the Manager is bound to meet the claim of the petitioner for the wages for the period she has worked. 2. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that for this course also the fee collected from the students was remitted to the Government. Further, the management has not collected fee at higher rate to enable it to meet the salary claims of the teaching staff engaged. 3. We find that the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to get salary from the management, in view of the refusal of the Government to pay the same, is fully justified. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the salary due to the petitioner for the period she has worked, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the management has already paid a portion of the Salary due to the petitioner, they need only pay the balance amount. But, the claim of the management against the State for refund of the fee collected in respect of the students studying in the course and W.P.(C) No.20452/2006 & 13251/2007 3 for liberty to collect higher fees etc. are left open. The management may workout its remedies against the State. W.P.(C) No.13251/2007 The point raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 20452/2006. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the salary due to the petitioner as Guest Lecturer, after deducting the salary, if any, paid, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim of the management against the Government which we have already mentioned in W.P(C) No. 20452/2006, is left open. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps