[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
National Institute Of Technology, ... vs Commander (Dr) Shamasundra M S on 10 February, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2192 of 2025 1
2026:KER:10609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2192 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.15409
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2:
1 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NIT
CALICUT P.O, CALICUT, KERALA, PIN - 673601
2 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NIT CALICUT
NIT CALICUT, NIT CALICUT P.O,
KERALA, PIN - 673601
BY ADVS.
SMT.LAYA MARY JOSEPH
SMT.ASHWATHI SHYAM
SMT.SWATHY SUDHIR
SHRI.SHYAM PADMAN (SR.)
SHRI. RAM MOHAN
SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.3:
1 COMMANDER (DR) SHAMASUNDRA M S
AGED 48 YEARS
RESIDENCE OF REGISTRAR,
NIT CALICUT CAMPUS, NIT CALICUT P.O,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673601
2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
W.A.No.2192 of 2025 2
2026:KER:10609
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION),
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, C - WING,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.I.YOHANNAN
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., CGC
SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2026,
THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2192 of 2025 3
2026:KER:10609
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.15409 of 2025 have
filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st
respondent herein-petitioner was serving as Registrar of National
Institute of Technology (NIT) Calicut and a retired officer of the
Indian Navy in the rank of Commander. The NIT, Calicut, which is
an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Education, Govt
of India, notified the recruitment of Registrar on 20.09.2021. The
1st respondent was still in naval service then and submitted his
application, and pursuant thereto, he appeared for the selection
process and an interview on 24.01.2022 at NIT, Calicut, on hybrid
mode before a Selection Committee. Based on the
recommendations of Selection Committee he was initially offered
the post of Registrar, NIT Calicut for a term of five years on
deputation in the scale of pay, fixed in the pay band 4 of Rs.
37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 10000/- as per the terms and
2026:KER:10609
conditions of a contract of service, which was to be executed
between the 1st respondent and the Director, NIT Calicut. This
appointment was to take effect from the date of the 1st respondent
joining duty at NIT Calicut. The 1st respondent was a serving naval
officer, and hence his appointment as Registrar was initially sought
on deputation for 5 years. However, the same was refused by the
IHQ MoD (Navy) or Naval Headquarters. After repeated
correspondence between the NIT, Calicut and the Naval HQ, a
special arrangement was made between the two organisations,
and eventually he was allowed to join on deputation for three
months, followed by continuation on post upon Pre-Mature
Retirement from the Navy. The Director, NIT, Calicut, duly
accepted the proposition, and the 1st respondent joined NIT,
Calicut. The 1st respondent's performance was exceptional, and
he, as Registrar, brought about noticeable changes in the
functioning by introducing effective and transparent practices in
NIT, Calicut, which were appreciated by one and all. However, in
2025, certain differences arose between the Director, NIT, Calicut
and the 1st respondent over a few official issues, especially
financial management, administrative matters and recruitment
2026:KER:10609
procedures being implemented by the Director. Thereafter, the 1 st
respondent is being harassed continuously through retributive
actions in one or another manner. The 1st respondent was put into
pecuniary loss by way of illegally deducting the pension part, even
though the contract did not provide for the same, and this issue
has been referred to the Ministry of Education for clarification by
the Director himself in an earlier correspondence. The 1st
respondent was threatened with the recovery of dearness relief,
that too from retrospective effect. The statutory authority and
powers vested in the Registrar, as per the provisions of the Act,
Statutes, and relevant regulations, have been arbitrarily and
unlawfully divested by the Director, NIT Calicut. A new post of
Dean (Faculty and Student Welfare/FSW), which finds no sanction
under the existing statutory framework, has been created in
violation of the law, and the entire administrative authority and
functional responsibilities of the Registrar have been irregularly
conferred upon the said Dean. The 1st respondent was served with
a Show Cause Notice on 24.03.2025, seeking why his services as
Registrar should not be terminated, and Dearness Relief paid to
him should be recovered. His office was arbitrarily shifted from the
2026:KER:10609
main administrative block, and staff members have been
expressly dissuaded, under threat, from visiting, communicating
with, or interacting with him. The 1st respondent invoked Section
29 of the NITSER Act, 2007, seeking reference of the dispute to a
Tribunal of Arbitration on two issues, including deduction of
pension/dearness relief, and the content and manner of issuance
of the Show Cause Notice by the Director. However, no response
has been received to that request. In the meantime, the 1 st
respondent continued to face unwarranted humiliation, with his
integrity and dignity being publicly undermined. With these
pleadings, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed
W.P.(C)No.15409 of 2025, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs;
"(i)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records
leading to Ext P 5, P 6 and P15 issued by 1st Respondent and
quash the same ;
(ii)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd
Respondent to consider the petition for reference to
Tribunal of Arbitration under section 29 of the NIT SER Act,
2007, Ext.P17,
(iii)Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other
2026:KER:10609
appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd
Respondent to consider and take a reasoned decision on the
letter bearing No.NITC/DIR/257/2024-25 dated
02.12.2024, Ext P10 with respect to the fixation of the
Petitioner's pay and allowances in accordance with the
applicable rules and provisions."
2.1. In the writ petition, on behalf of the appellants-
respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2025 was
filed, opposing the reliefs sought for, and producing therewith
Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents.
3. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge by the
impugned judgment dated 07.07.2025, disposed of the writ
petition by issuing certain directions. Paragraphs 3 to 6 and the
last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
"3. As the petitioner put in his papers and the Board of
Governors of NIT has accepted his resignation on
02.07.2025, prayer No.1 does not survive. However, the
question which remains to be answered is in respect of the
prayer Nos.2 and 3.
4. "The National Institute of Technology, Science Education
and Research Act, 2007" was amended in the year 2012.
The Section 29 of the said Act provides for referring any
dispute arising out of a contract between an Institute and
any of its employees on the request of the employee to a
2026:KER:10609
Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed
by the Institute, one member nominated by the employee,
and an umpire appointed by the Visitor.
5. There is no dispute regarding the nature of the
appointment of the petitioner, that is, the contractual one,
and therefore, the petitioner was a contractual employee of
the Institute. The dispute between the petitioner and the
Institute is in respect of the payment of salary, emoluments
and wages to him. The petitioner's case is that the Institute
is not entitled to recover the amount to the extent of
pension being received by the petitioner and he is entitled
to full pay and allowances on the post of the Registrar. This
contention of the petitioner is seriously disputed by the
Institute relying on clause 6 of the contract of appointment
mentioned hereinabove.
6. As the statute itself provides an alternative remedy of
referring the dispute between a contractual employee and
Institute before an Arbitration Panel, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the Institute to constitute a Panel of
Arbitrators for deciding the dispute in respect of the pay and
allowances of the petitioner. The Institute is directed to
forward a copy of this judgment with a request to visitor
forthwith for nominating an Arbitrator by the visitor, and in
the meantime, the petitioner and the Institute shall
nominate their Arbitrators for adjudicating their dispute in
respect of prayer Nos.2 and 3 made in this writ petition. As
soon as the visitor nominates the Arbitrator, the Arbitration
Panel should decide the dispute expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two months thereafter. Till the Arbitration
2026:KER:10609
Panel takes a decision, the Institute may not pay the dues
to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition
stands finally disposed of."
Being aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.15409 of
2025 filed the present writ appeal.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the National
Institute of Technology for the appellants and the learned counsel
for the 1st respondent-petitioner.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would
submit that, Section 29 of the National Institute of Technology,
Science Education and Research Act, 2007 (the 'Act' for short), is
intended to resolve disputes of a contractual or private nature
arising between the employees and the Institute, and not to
adjudicate policy-based pay fixation matters governed by
statutory orders and executive instructions of the Government of
India. The issue involved in the present case, being a policy
decision of the Government, will not fall under Section 29 of the
Act. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation
[(2021) 2 SCC 1], to argue that, when the cause of action and
subject matter of the dispute affects third party rights which
2026:KER:10609
requires centralized adjudication, mutual adjudication would not
be appropriate and enforceable. Therefore, according to the
learned Standing Counsel, the reference of the matter for
adjudication to the arbitration panel by the learned Single Judge
is liable to be interfered with.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent-petitioner would submit that the relation between the
appellants and the 1st respondent is based on Ext.P4 contract.
Therefore, as per Section 29 of Ext.P14 Act, the dispute has to be
resolved by arbitration. The Tribunal of arbitration has all the
powers to decide the dispute.
7. The 1st respondent was appointed as Registrar of the
1st appellant National Institute of Technology for five years in
terms of Ext.P4 contract of service entered into between the
parties. As per the contract, his term expires on 10.04.2027.
However, due to a difference of opinion, the 1st respondent
submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the Board of
Governors of the 1st appellant. As per Clause 6 of Ext.P4 contract,
the pay and allowance shall be fixed as per the norms of the
Government of India, as amended from time to time.
2026:KER:10609
8. As per Section 29 of the Act, 2007, which was amended
in the year 2012, any dispute arising out of a contract between an
Institute and any of its employees shall, at the request of the
employee concerned or at the instance of the Institute be referred
to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed by
the Institute, one member nominated by the employee, and an
umpire appointed by the Visitor. The dispute now existing between
the 1st respondent and the appellants is that the authorities of the
Institute have deducted the pension from his salary, while his
submission against the deduction of the pension component from
salary was pending consideration, taking a stand that the contract
of service between the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent does
not have a provision to deduct the pension component from the
salary and also the appellants decided to ratify in its meeting held
on 13.03.2025 to deduct the dearness relief too and issued office
notes to that effect. The aforesaid decisions cannot be considered
as in terms of the policy decisions of the Government, as
contended by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge, placing reliance on Section 29 of the Act,
2026:KER:10609
2007. For the said reason, the judgment in Vidya Drolia [(2021)
2 SCC 1] does not apply to the facts of the instant case.
9. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed
on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 07.07.2025.
In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
