IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1810 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DT.3.7.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.6403/2009) ------------------------ APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- DR.V.ANILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.VASU, ALUVILA HOUSE, MANAKKAL, MUTTIYADU LANE, CHEMPAZHANTY P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 587. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- KERALA ATRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, REP.BY REGISTRAR. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC FOR KAU. 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.1810 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was an Assistant Professor of Mathematics in the Faculty of Basic Sciences and Humanities of the Kerala Agricultural University. He was appointed to that post by order dated 4.4.1997. While accepting the appointment, he executed Ext.P1 agreement. Clause (4) of the said agreement reads as follows: “4. Notwithstanding the provisions relating to the conditions of service as framed under the statutes and other ordinances, rules, regulations or orders, it shall be competent for either party to terminate the appointment made hereunder by giving three months notice or paying to either party an amount equal to 3 months gross emoluments to which the employee is normally eligible while on duty in lieu of the notice.” W.A.No.1810/2009 2 2. Later, he applied for the post of Reader in Mathematics in the Calicut University in the year 2002. His application was forwarded by the Agricultural University along with Ext.P3 No Objection Certificate. Later, by Ext.P5 memo dated 12.12.2008, Calicut University informed him that he was selected for appointment as Reader in the department of Mathematics. He has to join there by 27.12.2008. Therefore, he moved the Kerala Agricultural University to relieve him, before the said date. As per Ext.P1, he must give three months notice and wait for the expiry of the said time limit or should pay three months salary for getting relieved before the expiry of the period of the notice. The amount of three months salary came to Rs.84,936/-. The University relieved him without paying that amount, on his giving an undertaking as per Ext.P11. He agreed that the aforementioned amount of Rs.84,936/- may be recovered from the General Provident Fund amount due to him. The petitioner joined Calicut University as he was relieved in time by the Agricultural University on the strength of the aforementioned undertaking. Later, he preferred the present Writ Petition claiming that the University could not have acted upon W.A.No.1810/2009 3 this undertaking and could not have adjusted the amount of Rs.84,936/-. He prayed for a direction to the University to repay the amount. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. 3. We heard Smt.Jeena Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel relied on Annexure-A1 document produced along with the Writ Appeal. The said document would show that the provision to give three months notice is statutory. But, the provision for payment of three months salary in lieu of notice does not have statutory sanction. Therefore, the demand for three months salary was unjustified, it is submitted. 4. We notice that only because there was such a provision for payment of three months salary instead of three months notice, the petitioner was able to get himself relieved and join the Calicut University in time. So, it is a provision in favour of the employees of the University. Further, the University could have insisted payment of the above said amount at the time of relieving him. But, University took a liberal view W.A.No.1810/2009 4 and agreed to adjust the amount from the GPF due to him . In view of the above facts, we feel that the present attempt of the appellant/petitioner to challenge the recovery of three months salary from the GPF is plainly untenable. The contention that the undertaking was obtained from him under threat and coercion lacks any merit. The University could have insisted that he should pay the amount and in that event he would have paid the amount and got the relieving order. So, having enjoyed a concession extended to the appellant, he is turning round and accusing the University. We find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps