IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 8897 of 2009(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.P.BHASKARAKURUP, VOLLEY BALL COACH (RETD), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, `RAM NIVAS' (KOHINOOR), (PO) CALICUT UNIVERSITY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.C.VALSALAN MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V MR.BIJU J.THADIKKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.(CALICUT UNIVERSITY) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELOOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.(CALICUT UNIVERSITY) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT (GR.GR), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O. (CALICUT UNIVERSITY), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS.MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8897/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.10.1981 BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION UNDER THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24.5.1995 BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION UNDER THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.10.98, BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.12.96 BY IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA. NO.2463/98 DTD. 26.9.02. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DTD. 19.12.02. P7;- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.6.03. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27.10.05. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30.5.06. P9(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. F2/11214/(08) DTD. 30.5.08. P(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. F2.11214(02) DTD. 30.5.06. P(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. F2/11214/(07) DTD. 30.5.06. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27.2.07. P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31.8.08. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 14.7.08 TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 25.10.08 TO EXT.P12 GIEN BY THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.5.09 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8897 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired Volley Ball Coach who was working under the first respondent University. Even though the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P11 and P13, at the time of argument, the petitioner confined the relief to the benefits of higher grade allowable as per Ext.P2. It is prayed that the other questions may be left open. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government and the University created two grade scales which are to ensure that the Coaches get first higher grade on completion of 10 years of service and second higher grade, on completion of 20 years of service. He was given the first higher grade on completion of 10 years of service, as per proceedings of the University dated 23.10.1981. Ext.P2 is the copy of the proceedings dated 24.5.1995 issued by the University. According to the provisions therein, the second higher grade is fixed at Rs.2500-4000 with effect from 1.2.1992. 2. The petitioner has also pointed out that the second higher grade was sanctioned to one Shri C. Usman Koya with effect from 13.4.1992, but the petitioner was not granted the same. He attained 55 years of service on wpc 8897/2009 2 30.6.1991. The question whether the petitioner and similarly placed Coaches could continue up to the age of 60 by treating them as Teachers, was raised by them in O.P.No.6337/1991 which finally resulted in Ext.P5 judgment in W.A.No2463/1999 and was allowed in their favour. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings, on the basis of the interim orders he continued in service upto 30.6.1996. In Ext.P5 judgment, the Division Bench declared that the petitioners/appellants have to be treated as teachers. Accordingly, it was declared that they can continue until the age of superannuation as are applicable to the teachers, viz. 60 years as per the First Statutes. 3. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P9 proceedings, fixing the scale of pay. It is the case of the petitioner that while fixing the same, the second higher grade benefits were not sanctioned even though he was representing the matter. Ext.P10 is one of the representations in this regard. Actually, the University had provided an enhanced scale of pay to Coaches in the Department of Physical Education, as per Ext.P8. But in the light of the objections raised by the audit, the matter was held up. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P11 that in the absence of Chancellor's assent the pay fixation allowed to the petitioner on the basis of the University Order could not be admitted in audit. The petitioner filed wpc 8897/2009 3 Ext.P12 representation before the first respondent, but without considering the same, the first respondent issued Ext.P13. Exts.P11 and P13 are under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit. 5. Since the petitioner is confining the benefits provided under Ext.P2, I am not dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the challenge against Exts.P11 and P13 or Ext.R1(a). In the counter affidavit of the University, in para 5 it is stated that Coaches whose entry scale of pay is Rs.2000-3200 (1992 pay revision) are eligible for 1st and 2nd higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-3500 and 2500-4000 on completion of 10 and 20 years of service respectively. It is also stated that on completion of 20 years of service as per 1992 pay revision the petitioner with the other retired Coaches have requested to grant them 2nd higher grade. Therefore, the Coaches whose entry scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 are eligible for the 1st and 2nd higher grades on Rs.2200-3500 and Rs.2500-4000 respectively. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent also, this fact is admitted. It is stated in para 12 that the petitioner who got two time bound higher grade promotions before the issuance of pay revision order 1992 is eligible only for the scale of Rs.2500-4000 with effect from wpc 8897/2009 4 1.3.1992 as per the provisions contained in G.O.(P) No.930/93(2) Fin dated 8.12.1993 and implemented in University vide U.O.No. Ad A4/13174/93 dated 31.1.2004. 6. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P12 representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders regarding the claim for grant of second higher grade. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy f this judgment. I have not considered anything on the merits of Exts.P11 and P13 and the contentions of the parties regarding the same are left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/