Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 833 (KER)

Shyla Abraham v. State of Kerala

2002-12-19

K.K.DENESAN

body2002
Judgment :- These Original Petitions arise a common question. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties on either side, all these cases are disposed of by this common judgment. In some of the cases interim orders were issued directing payment of salary at the higher rate. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in those Writ Petitions submitted that the interim directions thus issued have been complied with. At the time of final hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Sri.V.K.Beeran learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the individual claims of the petitioners in these matters and that it would be sufficient if the common issue arising in these cases is dealt with. With the consent of counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned Addl. Advocate General, I proceed to examine the issue raised in these cases as follows: 2. Petitioners are working as Lecturers (Senior Scale) in the various private colleges under the respective Universities, ie. Kerala University, Calicut University and Mahatma Gandhi University. They have approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respective Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education to countersign and pass the bills claiming salary in the revised scale of Lecturer (Sr.Scale), ie. in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15200 and further revised to Rs.12,000-420-18,300. 3. Government of Kerala issued GO.(P).No.171/99/H.Edn., dt.21.12.1999 in the wake of implementing UGC scheme including revision of pay scales of the teachers of Universities and Colleges in Kerala. Paragraph 6.20 of the aforesaid Government Order provides that minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D., five years for those with M.Phil, and six years for others at the level of Lecturer, and for eligibility to move into the Grade of Lecturer Selection Grade/Reader, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly five years. Universities in Kerala have issued orders laying down guidelines for placement of teachers to Lecturer (Sr.Scale) on the basis of GO.(P).No.171/99/H.Edn. dt.21.12.1999. For example, University of Calicut has issued the following guidelines as far as Lecturer (Sr.Scale) is concerned: “(4) LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE) A Lecturer will be eligible for placement in Senior Scale through a procedure of selection, if he/she has: 1. dt.21.12.1999. For example, University of Calicut has issued the following guidelines as far as Lecturer (Sr.Scale) is concerned: “(4) LECTURER (SENIOR SCALE) A Lecturer will be eligible for placement in Senior Scale through a procedure of selection, if he/she has: 1. Completed 6 years of service after regular appointment with relaxation of one year and two years respectively for those with M.Phil and Ph.D. 2. Participated in one orientation course and one refresher course of approved duration or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by U.G.C. (those with Ph.D. Degree would be exempted from one refresher/orientation course) 3. Consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports.” 4. Petitioners submit that they have fully satisfied the above eligibility conditions and accordingly they were promoted to the higher grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale) from the respective dates shown in the respective University orders, copies of which are produced along with the Original Petitions. 5. In view of the above orders issued by the concerned Universities, the Principals of the Colleges have got a duty to prepare the salary bills of the respective Lecturers (Sr.Scale) working in that college and present it to the covered Deputy Director of Collegiate Education having jurisdiction over that area. It is the duty of the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education, immediately on receipt of the salary bills, to verify whether the bills are prepared on the basis of the University order and on being satisfied that the salary claimed in the higher scale of pay is on the strength of approval order issued by the University to countersign and return the same to the College Principal. 6. Petitioners submit that as against the above procedure required by law, the Deputy Directors raised untenable objections and failed to discharge the duties and responsibilities. The Principals have duly forwarded the salary bills supported by the required data and documents. But the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education have returned the bills stating that the matter is under correspondence with the Government. In some other cases, upon noticing the objection on the part of the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education to countersign the salary bills of teachers in other colleges, the Principals have sought for clarifications as to whether they could present the salary bills. 7. In some other cases, upon noticing the objection on the part of the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education to countersign the salary bills of teachers in other colleges, the Principals have sought for clarifications as to whether they could present the salary bills. 7. Petitioners contended that in view of the placement orders approved by the competent authority, namely, the University, the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education have no authority to return the bills for drawing salary at the revised rate. According to them, once the approval is granted by the University, neither the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education nor the Director of Collegiate Education has got the legal authority to sit in appeal over the correctness or validity of the order of approval and to refuse or to reject salary bills prepared strictly adhering to the approval order. Petitioners also submit that the Department of Collegiate Education has no consistent stand in the matter of passing or rejecting the salary bills. The refusal to countersign salary bills by the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education is liable to be declared illegal since they have acted arbitrarily and without the authority of law. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Cherian Mathew v. The Principal, S.B.College (ILR 1998 (3) 1) and the judgment of Radhakrishnan J. in O.P.No.17890/1998. The above decisions are authority for the preposition, that, when a teacher is appointed in the college by the private management in terms of the provisions contained in the Universities Act and the Rules, his salary is to be disbursed by the Government, upon approval of that appointment by the concerned University. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment it is clearly stated that no provision of the Universities Act, First Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations in force enables the Government to sit in Judgment over the decision arrived at by the University regarding the number of teachers to be appointed in a Department in a college run by a private management. The judgment further says that in the absence of such a provision, the Government is not entitled to impose a condition that prior approval from the Director of Collegiate Education is needed for a management to appoint a teacher in its staff. The judgment further says that in the absence of such a provision, the Government is not entitled to impose a condition that prior approval from the Director of Collegiate Education is needed for a management to appoint a teacher in its staff. The following portion from the above judgment is worthwhile: “When a teacher is appointed in accordance with the work load assessed in the above terms, the said appointment has to be honoured by the Director of Collegiate Education and salary disbursed, if the said appointment is approved by the University. In case the Director doubts the correctness of that appointment, he will be at liberty to take up the matter with the University. When such a step is resorted to by the Director, the University has to examine the issue afresh and take a decision thereon. The decision so taken by the University as seen from the provisions of the Ordinance, Statute and Act, is binding on the Director. In such a situation, the Director will have no other course than to disburse the salary of the teacher whose appointment is approved by the University.” 9. In OP.No.28440/2002, the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur has filed a statement wherein reference is made to G.O.(P).No.76/90/H.Edn dt.27.3.1990 by which the then existing teachers working in the Government as well as Private Colleges were bifurcated into 52% category and 48% category. It is pointed out in that statement that the first category of teachers were intended for taking classes for Degree and P.G. Classes and such teachers were brought under UGC scheme, whereas the second category of teachers who were intended for taking classes at the Pre-degree level, are outside the UGC scheme and that such category of teachers will be given the UGC scale of pay only when they complete 8 years of service. According to the statement, Government have not so far issued orders regarding the qualification, method of appointment and service conditions of teachers who are appointed against vacancies arising in the category which pertains to Pre-degree classes and in the absence of such orders, the petitioners have no legal right to claim senior scale of pay even if the Universities have granted approval. 10. 10. In my view, the above contention taken in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent cannot stand scrutiny in the light of the law laid down by this court in Cherian Mathew’s case referred to above. The statement that the Director of Collegiate education has taken up the matter with the Government for inclusion of those teachers under UGC scheme also does not afford a valid explanation or answer to the contentions raised by the petitioners. The judgment of the Division Bench has clearly indicated the course of action which the Director of Collegiate Education has to follow in cases where dispute arise regarding the approval granted by the Universities. The reasons put forward in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent are not at all satisfactory answers to the issue involved in this case. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the reasons stated by the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education not to countersign the salary bills or honour the bills are not only inconsistent with each other but also devoid of any merit. I am therefore of the view that the petitioners whose placement in the higher grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale) have been approved by the competent University are entitled to draw salary in the pay scale of 10000-325-15200 with effect from the dates mentioned in respective orders of approval. 11. When I expressed my view about the merits of the contentions, at the close of the arguments in these case, Sri.V.K.Beeran, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Kerala and the Officers of the Collegiate Education, submitted that having regard to the present weak financial condition of the Government, some time is required for disbursing the salary at the revised rates. Hence the cases were adjourned for the purpose of ascertaining from the Government the time required for commencing the payment of salary at the revised rates, ie. in the grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale). When these writ petitions came up thereafter, the learned Addl. Hence the cases were adjourned for the purpose of ascertaining from the Government the time required for commencing the payment of salary at the revised rates, ie. in the grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale). When these writ petitions came up thereafter, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the salary bills of the petitioners from the month of January, 2003 onwards can be presented for countersignature of the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education and all those salary bills supported by the approval order of the University will be countersigned in that month itself, so that the petitioners will get their salary at the higher rate on the last date of January 2003 or the first week of February 2003 onwards. This submission is recorded. However, as far as the disbursement of the salary arrears is concerned, the learned Addl. Advocate General sought some more time and submitted that the respondents shall be granted a period of six months for disbursement of the salary arrears. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, these Original Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (a) Principals of the Colleges where the petitioners are working, shall within three weeks from today present, if not already done, the salary bills of the petitioners for the month of January, 2003 claiming salary in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 which is the revised grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale) and in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300 which is the revised grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) as the case may be, for countersignature by the Deputy Directors concerned. They shall cause the arrear salary bills of the petitioners claiming salary in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 and Rs.12,000-420-18,300 to be prepared for the period upto 31.12.2002 and present the same to the Deputy Directors within three months, for countersignature. (b) Respondent Deputy Directors shall take up for consideration the salary bills of the petitioners already presented and which will be presented hereafter by the principals of the concerned Colleges claiming salary in the revised grade of Lecturer (Sr.Scale) in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 and in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-420-18,300 as the case may be, and countersign those bills for the month of January, 2003, in that month itself, on the basis of the approval granted by the University. Respondent Deputy Directors shall verify the arrear salary bills of the petitioners upon presentation by the Principals of the Colleges as directed in (a) above, for the period covered by the approval order of the University, before 31st May, 2003 so that bills can be passed and salary drawn in the month of June 2003. Amounts covered by the bills shall be paid to the petitioners as directed above.