Dr. Sreekumar P vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 2576 Ker

Kerala High Court

Dr. Sreekumar P vs The State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2025

                                 1

W.P.(C) No.30304 of 2019
                                                     2025:KER:3595


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

    FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946

                           WP(C) NO. 30304 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

              DR. SREEKUMAR P.
              AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. A.G. PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI,
              BALASREE, CHEROOR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 008

              BY ADV.
              SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENTS:

1             THE STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
              HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2             APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS,
              ALATHARA ROAD, AMBADY NAGAR,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016
3             VICE CHANCELLOR,
              APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
              CET CAMPUS, ALATHARA ROAD, AMBADY NAGAR,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016
4             MONITORING COMMITTEE
              (APPOINTED AS PER ORDER NO. KTU/A/1335/2015
              DATED 12.11.2015 OF THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR)
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, APJ ABDUL KALAM
              TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, ALATHARA
              ROAD, AMBADY NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016
5             ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
                                    2

W.P.(C) No.30304 of 2019
                                                               2025:KER:3595


              NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ M
              NEW DELHI-110 070
6             REGIONAL OFFICE OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL
              FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
              AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SWRO CAMP OFFICE,
              COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CAMPUS,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016
7             NEHRU COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE
              TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
              NEAR LAKKIDI RAILWAY STATION, PAMPADY,
              THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR-680 597

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.K.R.GANESH
              SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
              SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
              SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
              SRI.JAYKAR K.S.
              SRI.T.JAYAN, GP.



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.01.2025,        THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
                             3

W.P.(C) No.30304 of 2019
                                                        2025:KER:3595



                  HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
           ------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.30304 of 2019
           ------------------------------
            Dated this the 17th day of January, 2025

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to have been working with the 7th

respondent as a Professor, had earlier approached this Court,

pointing out that the 7th respondent has been denying salary in

the AICTE scale of pay from 2009 onwards. By Ext.P12 judgment,

this Court, taking note of the afore submissions, noticed that a

Monitoring Committee was constituted for looking into such

complaints and hence the writ petition was disposed of directing

the 2nd respondent herein to place the complaint filed by the

petitioner before the said Monitoring Committee, who has to take

a decision thereupon within a period of three months. On the basis

of the afore direction, the Monitoring Committee has issued

Ext.P13, finding that it is for the petitioner to approach the

management, highlighting the grievance at first, and, insofar as

that is not done, the Monitoring Committee directed the petitioner

to make appropriate complaints before the management and

further directed the management to consider the afore grievance

2025:KER:3595

in accordance with law. It is challenging the afore order at Ext.P13

that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri.K.R.Ganesh, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and

Sri.George Jacob (Jose), the learned counsel for the 7th

respondent herein.

3. Sri.George Jacob, the learned counsel for the 7th

respondent, would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the

benefits of the AICTE scale of pay for more than one reason. He

would submit that the afore scale is applicable only to those

covered by Clause 1.2 of Ext.P2 scheme, and insofar as the

petitioner is not so covered, the petitioner may not be entitled for

the afore benefits. He would also place reliance on Ext.R7A

Government Order dated 07.12.2010, by which the AICTE scale

was adopted to contend that, even as per the same, it is only in a

situation where the petitioner was working in a post which was

sanctioned by the "Government", the question of extending the

benefit arises. He would say that, insofar as the petitioner was not

so working in a post sanctioned by the Government, instead he

was working in a post only sanctioned by the AICTE, strictly

speaking, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits pursuant to

2025:KER:3595

Ext.P2. He further relies on Ext.P3 Government Order dated

19.07.2014 to contend that the petitioner has obtained Ph.D. only

from 2016 onwards, and on account of Clause 1(i) of the said

Government Order, the petitioner would become entitled for the

afore benefits only from the date of acquisition of Ph.D., however,

the petitioner was extended the 'scale of pay' from 2009 onwards,

extending the benefits with proportionate DA etc.

4. Whatever that be, this Court notices that, on the earlier

round of litigation, by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court had

categorically directed the Monitoring Committee to take a

decision. However, in Ext.P13, the Monitoring Committee is of the

opinion that it is for the petitioner to represent before the

management at first. I notice that the petitioner had already

represented before the management as seen from Exts.P5, P6 etc.

In such circumstances, the findings contained in the impugned

order at Ext.P13 does not appear to be correct. Therefore, I am of

the opinion that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the

Monitoring Committee. So as to facilitate the above, it is only

proper that Ext.13 is set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of as

under;

2025:KER:3595

i. Ext.P13 issued by the 4th respondent

communicated by the 3rd respondent herein would

stand set aside.

ii. The 4th respondent is directed to consider the claim

of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law,

after taking note of Exts.P5, P6 and such other

complaints already filed before the management,

and arrive at an appropriate decision strictly in

accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks

from the of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE

anm

2025:KER:3595

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30304/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (PAY SCALES, SERVICE CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS (DEGREE) REGULATIONS, 2010.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O NO. 552/2014/H.EDN DTD 19.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT KERALA GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P5 LEGAL NOTICE SENT BY THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER VIA E-MAIL.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. KTU/A/1335 /2015 DATED 12.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIST OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER RTI APPLICATION DATED 27.01.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

2025:KER:3595

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.03.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. U.O. NO.

416/2019/KTU DATED 24.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/11/2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION ORDER NO.

REF.TIST//2020-21 DATED 22/05/2020 ISSUED BY THE TOCH INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R7A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.389/10/H.EDN DATED 7/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT.