IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 12205 of 2005(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.MALATHY, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED 3. RAJAN PULPPARAYIL SECTION OFFICER (HG), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 4. SUJITH K.G., SECTION OFFICER(HG), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM MALAPPURAM. ADDL. R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 17.11.2005 IN IA. NO.13393/2005. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12205/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD-A1/6745/83 DT. 21.4.89 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.F1/3430/89 DT. 7.4.90 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AD.C1/322/83 DT. 25.11.83 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER U./O. NO.AD.C1/3222/83 DT. 25.7.07 1984 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.C2/8041/88 DT. 14.2.1989 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 9.4.90 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A1/6745/83 DT. 146.4.90 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.4.04 /90 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.6745/83 DT. 19.4.90 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE NO.AD.F1/3430/89 DT. 19.4.90 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. 7037/90 DT. 2.12.97 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P12:- COPY OF THE VERIFIED PETITION FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER WITH MEMO OF THE UNIVERSITY. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED IN VERIFIED PETITION BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT. 6.4.98. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD-A1-560/98 DT. 6.4.98 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DT. 24.4.98 TO THE RESPONDENTS BY R.P.A.D. SENT BY THE PETITIONER. P16:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17.6.04 IN OP. NO.16642/99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P17:- COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P18:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A1/560/98 DT. 31.1.2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 12205 OF 2005 C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P18 is the order under challenge. 2. While working under the respondent University, on 18.9.1987 petitioner was promoted as a Senior Grade Assistant. While so, she applied for leave without allowance for 5 years from 9.4.1983. After she entered on leave, by Ext. P3 she was informed that leave cannot be granted and was asked to report for duty and she rejoined for duty on 15.2.1984. It is stated that subsequently by Ext. P4 order her absence during the period from 9.4.1983 to 14.2.1984 was regularised. 3. After joining duty, she availed of maternity leave for the period from 16.2.1984 to 15.4.1984 followed by leave without allowance for the period from 16.4.1984 to 15.7.1987. After the expiry of the leave she rejoined duty on 20.8.1987. 4. Subsequent to rejoining, she represented to have the W.P.(C) No. 12205 OF 2005 -2- aforesaid three spells of leave periods combined so that it will be beneficial for her seniority purposes. This request was allowed by the Vice Chancellor as per Ext. P5 order dated 14.2.1989. On the basis of Ext. P5, petitioner submitted Ext. P6 for promotion when Ext. P7 was issued, calling upon her to show cause why Ext. P5 order shall not be cancelled. Though she submitted an explanation, by Ext. P9 order, Ext. P5 order was cancelled. Thereafter by Ext. P10 promotions were also effected, excluding the petitioner. 5. Ext. P9 order was challenged before this Court in O.P. No. 7037/90 which was disposed of by Ext. P11 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter. It is stated that by Ext. P14, Ext. P5 was ordered to be cancelled once again. This was again challenged in O.P. No. 16642/99 resulting in Ext. P16 directing reconsideration of the matter. Again the parties were heard and Ext. P18 order was passed, ordering cancellation of Ext. P5 and this order is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though so far no benefit flowing from Ext. P5 has been extended to her, it is stated that she is retiring in November, 2008 and that if Ext. P5 is retained, W.P.(C) No. 12205 OF 2005 -3- that will be beneficial for fixation of pension and terminal benefits. 7. I heard the counsel for the University also. 8. Though the reasons which are assigned in Ext. P18 justify the stand the University has taken, the question is whether at this belated stage when the petitioner is about to retire, she should be deprived of the benefits flowing from Ext. P5 at least in so far as her pensionary benefits are concerned. The fact remains that Ext. P5 though issued on 14.2.1989 has been cancelled only by Ext. P18 dated 31.1.2005 and that too, after two rounds of litigation before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner has also reached the fag end of her career. In view of all these factual issues, though I am endorsing the view taken by the University in Ext. P18 I feel that the petitioner should be given the benefits on a notional basis and that pensionary benefit alone should be fixed on that basis. It is clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits other than the pensionary benefits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-