Dr.Rema M.K vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7956 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 18386 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          DR.REMA M.K
          AGED 53 YEARS
          D/O LATE M.S. KRISHNAN, MULLASSERY HOUSE, KANNOTH
          P.O., VENKITANGU, THRISSUR, PIN-680 510.
          BY ADVS.
          K.S.BHARATHAN
          ALPHIN ANTONY
          AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
          VISAKH ANTONY
          C.J.LIZY
          CHRISTINE MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
    2     THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680 020.
    4     SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE,
          REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF
          SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR AND SECRETARY,
          COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 011.
    5     THE PRINCIPAL,
          SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 011.
    6     THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
          P.O, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 636.
          BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER ADVOCATE
          SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18386 OF 2022            2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that she was appointed as a Guest

Lecturer in the Sanskrit Department of the 4 th respondent -

College validly and through a legally sanctioned processes. Her

singular complaint in this writ petition is that, in spite of the

fact that she was offered Ext.P2 order of appointment and

though she has been working continuously thereafter, the

eligible salary has not been disbursed to her by the said

respondent. She, therefore, prays that 4th respondent be

directed to disburse to her the eligible salary, within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.K.S.Bharathan - learned counsel for the petitioner,

further explained that, as along as her client is working as a

Guest Lecturer, she is entitled to be paid salary; however,

conceding that steps have been taken by the 4 th respondent to

again appoint persons as Guest Lecturers or substantively to the

said post. He submitted that his client does not oppose such

processes, but that as long as she is working and has not been

disturbed from the position, her entitlement to salary remains

unimpeached.

3. Sri.K.P.Sudheer - learned Standing Counsel for

respondents 4 and 5 initially took time to obtain instructions in

this matter; but, to a pointed question from this Court,

submitted that if this Court is only inclined to direct the 4 th

respondent to consider the petitioner's claim based on all

relevant aspects, he will not stand in the way of appropriate

orders being issued. He, however, prayed that this Court may

not make any affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner

at this stage and allow the 4 th respondent to take an apposite

decision as per law.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is

incontestable that petitioner has been appointed through Ext.P2

and if she has been working as a Guest Lecturer even until

today, then certainly, she is entitled to her salary as per the

eligible rates. The fact that a new advertisement has been

published by the 4th respondent for the purpose of filling up the

vacancy, either through a Guest Lecturer or substantively,

would not stand in the way of the petitioner being entitled to

salary, provided there are no other legal impediments.

5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that 4 th respondent

must consider the claim of the petitioner and issue an

appropriate order without any further delay.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent

of directing the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the

petitioner for salary during the period which she actually

worked on the strength of Ext.P2 order of appointment; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it reiteratingly clear that if the petitioner is found

eligible to salary during the period in question, then same shall

be disbursed to her within a period of one month thereafter and

not later.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/29.6

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18386/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY G.O.(MS) NO 164/2018/HEDN DATED 12.07.2018.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER BEARING NO G5.142/2021 DATED 02.11.2021 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.05.2022.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO D2/376/2021/H.EDN DATED 05.04.2022.