IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28769 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.B.KARUNAKARAN, (RETD.READER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT, S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM) 'KARUNYA', MUNDAKKAL EAST, THUMBARA, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR SMT.SREEJA K.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.PIN-673 635 2. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.PIN-695 001 R1 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.28769/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17/10/1987 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/11/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.24633/98. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHANCELLOR. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/2/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/3/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P5(A) COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR FIXATION OF PAY P6 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. P6(A) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/3/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHANCELLOR. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/5/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY. P8(A) COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 25/5/2010 P8(B) COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 25/5/2010. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 28769 of 2010-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks implementation of Ext.P4 which is an order passed by the Chancellor of the University by which the petitioner has been found eligible for notional appointment as Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Calicut in the scale of pay of Rs.2450-3600 with effect from 19.8.1989 or from a date on which any appointment was made from Ext.P1 notification dated 17.10.1987, whichever is later, with the admissible allowances and consequential pensionary benefits. Contending that the University is not implementing the same, this writ petition has been filed. 2. This is a case where the petitioner was working as Reader and Head of the Department of Sanskrit, S.N. College, Kollam. He retired from service on 31.3.1999. While working as Professor Grade II ( Non Cadre) of Sanskrit, he applied for appointment to the post of Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Calicut pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P2 judgment of this Court wherein he himself was the petitioner. Therein, this Court considered the challenge against the re- notification issued by the University, viz. Ext.P9 therein and finally in the wpc 28769/2010 2 operative portion of the judgment, this Court directed the Chancellor of the University to consider the question as to what relief the petitioner is entitled for illegally denying him the benefit of selection made by a properly constituted Selection Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor himself and consequent notional appointment. I am not reiterating the contentions of the parties, since all aspects were considered in the said judgment and, Ext.P4 is only a consequential order thus issued. 3. The proceedings of the Chancellor shows that the Chancellor has considered various aspects while passing the order. The petitioner has averred in para 5 of the writ petition that the meeting of the Syndicate held on 19.8.1989 rejected the recommendation of the selection committee to appoint the petitioner, which was interfered by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the pension and terminal benefits can be granted only to a teacher who retires from the service of the University on attaining superannuation. Accordingly, the claims of the petitioner have been opposed by the University. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second wpc 28769/2010 3 respondent, Chancellor of the University. In para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, after stating various aspects, it is averred as follows: “9. In compliance with the direction of High Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 24.11.2009, the Chancellor, University of Calicut issued Ext.P4 order that the petitioner is eligible for notional appointment as Professor of Sanskrit, University of Caicut in the scale of pay of Rs.2450 - 3600 with effect from 19.8.1994 or from the date on which any appointment was made by the University from the Notification dated 17.10.1987, whichever is later, with all consequential pensionary benefits. The University of Calicut is therefore directed to take further stage in the matter and report compliance. It is clear from Ext.P4 order that the 2nd respondent held that the writ petitioner is eligible for monetary benefits by way of fixation of revised scale of pay and also all admissible allowances from the date of his notional appointment together with consequential pensionary benefits on his retirement.” Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the date “19.8.1994” mentioned in the 7th line of para 9 of the counter affidavit should be read as “19.8.1989”. Para 8 of the counter affidavit shows that the petitioner's claim was for the period 18.9.1989 to 2.11.2003, the date of superannuation. wpc 28769/2010 4 6. In the light of the clear stand taken in the above paragraphs, the contention of the University that the petitioner is not eligible for monetary benefits, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the direction in Ext.P4 will have to be implemented. 7. The writ petition is therefore allowed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to quantify the benefits allowable to the petitioner as per Ext.P4 and disburse the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prayer No.2 also should be considered by this Court, in the light of the various circumstances pointed out in the affidavit of the University and because of the fact that various litigations were pending before this Court, I refrain from issuing any direction as sought for in prayer No.2. No costs (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/