IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33861 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.C.FRANCIS, S/O.P.CHELLAN, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, FATHIMA MATHA NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 33861/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 2-2-1996. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PH. D DEGREE. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 9-6-2003. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 26840/2003. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 23348/2005. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 4-3-2006. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 20-2-2007. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 4-10-2007. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 17-2-2004. EXT.P10 ORDER DT. 11-1-2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF GOVT. CIRCULAR. EXT.R2(b) LETTER DT. 29-12-2007. EXT.R2(c) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 8-8-1994. EXT.R2(d) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 2-2-1996 EXT.R2(e) FORM OF OPTION AND STATE SCALE FIXATION ORDERS. EXT.R2(f) FORM OF OPTION AND STATE SCALE FIXATION ORDERS. EXT.R2(g) RELEVANT CLAUSES OF UNIVERSITY STATUTE. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 33861 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Lecturer (Selection Grade) working in the Fathima Matha National College, Kollam. Petitioner's placement in the Selection Grade has been approved by the University. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that salary in the Selection Grade is not being disbursed to him by respondents 1 and 2. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the validity of the placement of the petitioner as Lecturer (Selection Grade). The learned Government Pleader would therefore contend that insofar as the validity of the placement is disputed by respondents 1 and 2, the Government is not bound to disburse salary to the petitioner in the Selection Grade. 3. The petitioner points out that disputing the validity of the Selection Grade, respondents 1 and 2 have taken up the matter with the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has confirmed that the placement of the petitioner in the Selection Grade is in order. According to the petitioner, this Court in Cherian Mathew v. The Principal, S.B College, ILR 1998 (3) Kerala 1, O. Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala, 2003(2) KLJ 189, Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College, 2007 (3) KLT 355 and State of Kerala v. Arun George, 2009(4) KLT 972, has repeatedly held that once the University approves the appointment of a teacher, the Government cannot deny salary to him. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the right of the Government to challenge the validity of the approval has not been denied by this Court in those decisions. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am of opinion that in view of the Division Bench decisions W.P.C. No. 33861/07 -: 2 :- relied upon by the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 cannot take the stand that they are not liable to pay salary. If they have any dispute regarding the validity of approval by the University, it is for them to take up the matter with the University or to challenge the approval granted by the University appropriately. But as long as the approval stands, the Government is bound to pay salary. The University has, on a reference by the Government, affirmed the validity of the approval. As such, it is for respondents 1 and 2 to challenge the approval appropriately. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, there would be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the petitioner is paid salary in the Selection Grade in accordance with the approval granted by the University. Arrears shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the petitioner shall be continued to be paid salary in the Selection Grade every month until the approval is validly set aside or stayed in appropriate proceedings. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for two advance increments, the contention is left open for the petitioner to agitate in appropriate proceedings . Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/