IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1837 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.26.6.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.32242/2008 ----------------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- DR.MANOHARAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, “LEKSHA NIVAS, JAB LANE, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI ADV.SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHADEVI FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A. No. 1837 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this, the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He joined V.T.M. N.S.S. College, Dhanuvachapuram, Trivandrum, as Lecturer in Commerce on 19.1.1994. He has already obtained Ph.D Degree in 1991. The petitioner claimed four advance increments, for the reason that he was a Ph.D holder. The petitioner along with others approached this Court raising the said claim. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment. It was declared that the claim of the appellant is covered by Ext.P8 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. So, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was directed to take a decision based on the said judgment. Going by Ext.P8, the appellant is entitled to get only two advance increments and that too from 27.7.1998. The said benefit has already been granted to him. Appellant submits, he is entitled to get two more increments. Since the said claim was not accepted by the competent authorities, the W.A. No.1837 of 2009 - 2 - present Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that in view of Ext.P12 judgment read with Ext.P8 judgment, the present contention is untenable. He can get only what is available under Ext.P8. Based on the above finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. We heard Mr.M.Ramaswamy Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent, University Grants Commission. In view of Ext.P12 judgment, as per which, it was held that the appellant's claim is covered by Ext.P8, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. What ever that could be granted in terms of Ext.P8 has already been granted. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps