IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 4278 of 2002(H) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE), DEPARTMENT OF AQUATIC BIOLOGY AND FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI SMT.SREELATHA KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. . THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 3. THE FINANCE OFFICER, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. FOR R1,2 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 4278/2002. -------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GOVT. ORDER DT. 4-7-2000. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 23-8-2000. EXT.P3 GOVT. ORDER DT. 29-3-2001. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF FIXATION STATEMENT. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 13-6-2001. EXT.P6 STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 20-9-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 4278 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Lecturer (senior scale) in the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries in the University of Kerala. The petitioner opted for the UGC Scheme and the revised scale of pay recommended by the UGC, which have been adopted by the Government of Kerala by Ext. P1 order. Pursuant to Ext. P1 order, the University issued Ext. P2 order approving and implementing Ext. P1 formula for pay fixation along with a ready reckoner for the teachers of the University. According to the petitioner, going by Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner, who was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 3625/-, was entitled to have his basic pay revised as Rs. 10975/- notionally on pay revision for fixation of pay and for the purpose of arrears as Rs. 10,650/-. According to the petitioner, an identically situated teacher, namely, Smt. Padmakumari G. Nair, who was also drawing the basic pay of Rs. 3625/-, was given notional fixation of basic pay as Rs. 10975/- and fixed the basic pay for the purpose of arrears as Rs. 10,650/- by Ext. P6 statement of fixation of pay. Although, by Ext. P5 representation giving detailed calculation of fixation of pay, the petitioner sought fixation of pay of Rs. 10975/- notionally with effect from 1-1-1996 and for arrears for the period from 1-1-1996 to 31-1-1997 as Rs. 10,650/-, but, the same was rejected by Ext. P7 order without giving any reasons. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading up to Ext. P7 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other order. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re- fix the pay of the petitioner notionally at Rs. 10,975/- w.e.f. 1-1- 1996 in the revised scale in accordance with the provisions in Ext. W.P.C. No. 4278/02 -: 2 :- P 1 and Ext. P 3 and to grant all consequential benefits. (iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get his pay fixed notionally at Rs. 10,975/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996 in the revised scale and is eligible for a basic pay of Rs. 11300/- w.e.f. 1-2-1997.” 2. A statement has been filed by the respondents justifying their stand and according to the standing counsel for the University, the said Smt. Padmakumari is a teacher in an aided college and not a University teacher, which the petitioner is. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. In the original petition, the petitioner has categorically averred that Smt. Padmakumari G. Nair is a Lecturer of N.S.S Hindu College, Changanacherry, who was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 3625/- in the pre-revised scale of pay was granted fixation by Ext. P6 as per which her basic pay was fixed as Rs. 10,975/- notionally with effect from 1-1-1996 and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to identical fixation of pay. The petitioner has also demonstrated in Ext. P5 representation, the correctness of his claim for fixation as claimed by him. But, in Ext. P7 order, disposing of Ext. P5 representation , what is stated is thus: “With reference to your letter cited, I am to inform you that your pay has been fixed @ Rs. 10650/- in the revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 10000-15200 with effect from 1.1.1996 and the fixation order has been issued. Your claim for further fixation effecting the II interim relief cannot be agreed to since there is no provision for the same as per the U.O referred to above.” The same contains absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted. In the statement filed by the University, there is absolutely no reference to Ext. P6 fixation in respect of an identically situated Lecturer or as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the same benefit of pay as that of the Lecturer covered by Ext. P6. Of course, the learned counsel for the University would point out that Ext. P6 is in respect of an employee of an aided college, which was W.P.C. No. 4278/02 -: 3 :- approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, but does not dispute before me that the scale of pay under UGC Scheme is applicable to both equally. If that be so, there should be a reasoning as to why both should be treated differently in the matter of fixation of pay. Absolutely no reasoning whatsoever is forthcoming either in the impugned order or in the statement filed by the respondents. As such, I am satisfied that the respondents are liable to re-consider the matter on the basis of the specific contention raised by the petitioner in Ext. P5 as well as in the original petition including the petitioner's contention regarding parity in fixation based on Ext. P6 fixation of an identically situated teacher in an aided college. Therefore, I quash Ext. P7 and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the matter in the light of the observation made herein above and the contentions of the petitioner in the original petition and in Ext. P5. Such re-consideration shall be after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Orders to be passed pursuant thereto shall state as to why the petitioner's contentions cannot be accepted including that the petitioner cannot be given the same fixed as in Ext. P6 giving cogent reasons for the conclusion. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/