IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 33794 of 2004(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE IN MATHEMASTICS (RETD.), COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI, RESIDING AT PRASANNALAYAM, PALACE THOPE, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, COCHIN COLLEGE, KOCHI-2. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33794/2004 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner commenced service as a Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics under the 4th respondent from 4.10.1979. He was conferred selection grade with effect from 16.12.1994. Subsequently, on 17.4.1979 he acquired Ph.D and still later by Ext.P3 order dated 19.10.2001 he was re-designated as Reader with effect from 17.4.1999. Petitioner submits that, in clause 6.19 of Ext.P2 Government Order implementing UGC scheme, it is provided that, a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he/she acquires a Ph.D degree in his/her service. 2. As the petitioner was not given the benefit of advance increments, the petitioner filed a writ petition WP(c).No.33794/04 2 before this court as WP(c).No.17597/04. In that writ petition the 3rd respondent filed a statement and copy of which is Ext.P4. In paragraph 8, it is stated thus. "In this regard, it is pointed out that this respondent has no objection to grant advance increment to the petitioner on the date of acquiring Ph.D. The Principal, Cochin College, Kochi has been directed to forward required proposal. As and when the proposal is received, the request of the petitioner will be considered as per rules.' 3. In view of the fact that the 3rd respondent has admitted the eligibility of the petitioner for two advance increments as provided in clause 6.19 of Ext.P2, this court disposed of the writ petition along with two connected matters by Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P5 judgment, para 2 reads as follows; "There is no dispute that the petitioners obtained their Ph.D degree while they were working as WP(c).No.33794/04 3 Selection Grade Lecturers with pay as Lecturer Selection Grade and they have been granted their higher grade also. But that will not stand in the way of the petitioners getting their original increments since any teacher in service is eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires Ph.D degree irrespective of the time or stage of acquisition of the Ph.D degree." 4. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the 3rd respondent who issued Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 referring to Ext.P7 order dated 23.10.2002, the claim of the petitioner was negatived on the ground that the benefit of clause 6.19 iof Ext.P2 shall not be admissible to teachers in Govt. and private colleges who are recruited/promoted to the post for which Ph.D is an essential qualification. The reasoning of the 3rd respondent is, since for Reader post, Ph.D is an essential qualification and as the petitioner was promoted to that post by Ext.P3, he is ineligible for the benefit of WP(c).No.33794/04 4 advance increments as per clause 6.19 of Ext.P2. It is challenging Ext.P6 the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of advance increments. 5. The 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit is heavily relying on Ext.P6 which is also produced as Ext.R3 (a). According to the 3rd respondent the petitioner was promoted as Reader with effect from 17.4.1999, the date of which the petitioner acquired Ph. D. It is stated that since for Reader post Ph.D is an essential qualification, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of advance increment provided in ExtP2. 6. In my view, petitioner is entitled to succeed. The reason is that, when the petitioner had filed WP(c). No.17597/2004, the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of advance increment was admitted by the 3rd respondent in paragraph 8 of the statement. It is acting upon this admission, the writ petition was disposed of by WP(c).No.33794/04 5 Ext.P5 judgment. In para 2 of the judgment this court has held that any teacher in service is eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquired Ph.D irrespective of the time taken for acquisition of Ph.D degree. If that be so, going by Exts.P4 and P5 as the respondents had no dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioner it is not open to the respondents to raise a dispute at this distance of time. 7. That apart I also find substance in the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P7 is applicable only to those recruited/promoted to the post of Reader to which Ph.D is an essential qualification. Petitioner's case is that, a lecturer having Ph.D on completion of 5 years is entitled to be treated as Reader, and that as he did not have Ph.D, he was granted selection grade. It was thereafter that he was redesignated as Reader by Ext.P3 order. This order is now sought to be understood by the 3rd respondent as a case of promotion. In my view this is an erroneous interpretation and therefore is unacceptable. WP(c).No.33794/04 6 8. For all these reasons I cannot accept the view taken by the 3rd respondent in Exts.P6 and Ext.P6 declining the benefit to the petitioner will stand set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of clause 6.19 to the petitioner and the benefits shall be quantified and paid. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.33794/04 7