IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 821 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10496/2006 Dated 14/11/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. DR.B.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60,S/O. BHANU, RETIRED PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE VELLAYANI, RESIDING AT BINDU VIHAR, MANGALATHUKONAM,KATTACHALKUZHY P.O. BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR.V.K.RAJU ,PROFESSOR, AGED 56 S/O. KRISHNNAN ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH REGIONAL AGRIUCLTURAL RESEARCH STATION P.O. AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD. 3. DR, B.K. JAYACHANDRAN ,AGED 56, S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNNAN PROFESSOR & HEAD DEPARTMENT OF PLANTATION CROPS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VELLAYANI , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.MR.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR. JOBY V.PAUL.AGED 54,S/O.PAUL REGISTRAR OF KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY MR.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVER FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... Cont. Case No. 821 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with my judgment dated 14.11.2007 which is produced as Annexure A1 which was confirmed by the Division Bench by Annexure A2 judgment and by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 15.4.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2540 to 2542 of 2009. Two contentions are raised. The first is that there is violation of directions in Annexure A1 judgment and the second is that the costs ordered as per the the judgment of the Supreme Court has not been paid. The directions in my judgment are as follows: “5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. May be there would be an anomaly as contended by the learned standing counsel for the University. But the question is because of that anomaly, the petitioners can be denied the benefits as per Ext.P4 itself. Perhaps the persons, who drafted Ext.P4 may have lost sight of the fact that there are certain Associate Professors (non- cadre) existing in the service for whom they failed to make provision while granting revised scales of pay. However, when a teacher is actually drawing the salary in a particular scale of pay and scales of pay of all posts are revised as per Ext.P4, in view of Sub Clause 3.02 quoted above, the petitioners would be entitled to the scale of pay Cont. Case No. 821 of 2008 -2- corresponding to the scale of pay which they are holding although they may not be entitled to claim induction as Associate Professors. It cannot be disputed that the scale of pay corresponding to Rs.1950-2950, as per Ext.P4 is Rs.3700-5700. Therefore notwithstanding the anomaly noted above, unless orders are passed to remove that anomaly, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of sub Clause 3.02 read with Appendix II of Ext.P4. They would be so entitled with effect from 1.1.86 or the date of promotion as Associate Professors (non-cadre) which ever is later. Therefore the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 10496/06, 13543/06, 13572/06 have become entitled to the scale of pay Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 with effect from 1.1.86, 12.1.87 and 4.10.87. It is so declared. The University shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the above finding and disburse monetary benefits thereof within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.” 2. Although earlier some orders were passed, after cancelling the same, the following order has been by the University. “After having considered the matter in detail, the following orders are issued: i) The 3 University Proceedings read 3rd above stand cancelled. ii) The petitioners in the judgment read 1st and 2nd above who were granted Assocaite Professor (Non Cadre) are hereby sanctioned the scale of Rs.3700-5700 under the 1986 UGC scheme as detailed below. Cont. Case No. 821 of 2008 -3- Sl. No. Name and Present Designation Date from which the scale for Rs.3700-5700 sanctioned 1 Dr. V.K.Raju Professor 12/01/1987 2 Dr. Jayachandran B.K., professor 04/10/1987 3 Dr.B.Balakrishnan,Professor (Retd.) 01/01/1986 iii) The concerned audit circle and the Head of stations will take immediate action to authorise and disburse the pay and arrears of the incumbents.” On a reading of paragraph five of my judgment and the order now passed, I am satisfied that the directions have been complied with. As far as the costs ordered by the Supreme Court is concerned, costs of Rs,10,000/- were to be paid to each of the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. Rs. 30,000/- has admittedly been paid . I do not think that there is any irregularity in the same. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the judgments have been duly complied with. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge