Raju George vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8630 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 15961 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          RAJU GEORGE, AGED 64 YEARS
          S/O. K.P.VARKEY (LAE), KUTTIKKATTU, AMALAGIRI P.O,
          KOTTAYAM - 686561.,
          (RETIRED PRINCIPAL, MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE,
          MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD).

          BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    3     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
          HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    4     THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS
          BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

    5     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE,
          OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673001.

    6     THE PRINCIPAL, MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE,
          MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD - 670545.

          ADV.M.R.SREELATHA (SPL. G.P)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15961 OF 2022
                                 2


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P6 on the specific contention

that it has been issued thoughtlessly and without proper

application of mind, particularly when he had, through Ext.P5,

made certain specific request with respect to his pay scale in

his position as a Principal of the college.

2. Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P6, the

Government has rejected his client's claims merely saying

that, when there is a conflict between the Government order

and UGC Regulations, the former will prevail and therefore,

that his request to grant him the benefits of the latter

Regulations cannot be considered. The learned counsel

submitted that Ext.P6, therefore, has not considered any of

the facets of law in its proper perspective; and thus prayed

that it be quashed, and the competent Authority be directed to

reconsider his client's claim in terms of law.

3. Smt.M.R.Sreelatha - learned Special Government

Pleader for Finance, submitted that Ext.P6 was not issued on

Ext.P5, but on a representation dated 11.12.2020 made by the

petitioner to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance. She argued WP(C) NO. 15961 OF 2022

that since the said representation has not been brought on

record, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition since,

as said above, Ext.P6 was issued in relation to the contents of

the same alone.

4. However, she then fairly submitted that if the

petitioner only requires Ext.P5 to be taken up and disposed of

as per law, she would not stand in the way of appropriate

orders being issued by this Court; but praying that no

affirmative declarations be made with respect to any reliefs

sought for by him and leave it to the competent Authority to

take an apposite decision on it in terms of law.

5. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that Ext.P5

will require to be reconsidered by the competent Authority

because Ext.P6 has not been issued on its basis, but on the

subsequent representation made by the petitioner before the

Hon'ble Minister for Finance, which he normally ought not to

have done, since the said Authority, as is well known, is only

involved in the policy decisions and not day to day

implementations of the UGC Regulations or Government

Orders.

6. Resultantly and for the reason above alone, I set aside

Ext.P6, without entering into the merits of any of the WP(C) NO. 15961 OF 2022

contentions of the rival parties; with a consequential direction

to the competent Authority of the Government to reconsider

Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner, after affording him an

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate

order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 15961 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15961/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO, MMC/ESTT/B1/TS/1/2006 DATED 25.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, MANANTHAVADY.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE 6TH UGC PAY REVISION REGULATIONS.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF G.O(P) NO. 58/2010/H.EDN DATED 27.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION DUE TO THE PLACEMENT DATED 24.11.2020 BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.3.2013 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO GRANT ENTRY LEVEL PAY AS PRESCRIBED IN EXT.P2.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 1720826/EDN-

C1/38/2021-FIN DATED 3.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O(P) NO.

392/2010/H.EDN DATED 10.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. GS3-2576/2021 DATED 11.10.2021 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 1 36/2009-U-II DATED 26.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION.