Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1400 (KER)

Roymon N. v. V Venu

2025-05-23

D.K.SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT D. K. Singh, J. W.P.(C) Nos. 1534 of 2021 & 13514 of 2021 1. The petitioner who stood retired as Librarian Gr. I on 31.03.2010 seeking revision of his pay as per the pay prescribed to the Lecturers having the University Grants Commission (UGC) qualifications. The petitioner has indulged in several litigations. The brief facts of the case are stated as under; a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Librarian Gr. IV at St. Gregorious College, Kottarakkara, Kollam district, an aided College affiliated to the University of Kerala on 24.09.1987. As per the averments in the writ petition, petitioner was promoted as Librarian Gr. I w.e.f. 01.05.1992. b) The petitioner’s promotion as Librarian Gr. I was approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram vide the order dated 03.10.1992. c) The UGC formulated a Scheme regarding the qualifications of teachers/lecturers in the University and Colleges and their pay scale etc. The State Government issued Government Order dated 21.12.1999 implementing the UGC scheme in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated to them in respect of the teachers at the Universities and Colleges. The UGC scale was also made applicable to the Physical Education Teachers and Librarians in the Universities and Colleges in the State Government. 2. The petitioner claims that the Government of Kerala vide the Government Order dated 16.11.1994 had exempted teachers appointed prior to 13.03.1990 but before 14.05.1992 i.e. the date when the UGC scale was made applicable, there was no requirement for such teachers to have NET qualification as prescribed by the 1992 Scheme of the UGC. 3. The petitioner claims that as the petitioner was appointed as Librarian Gr. I which would be the Lecturer grade w.e.f. 01.05.1992, he should be given the benefit of UGC Scheme without him having the NET qualifications. Prima facie, this submission also does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the petitioner’s promotion as Librarian Gr. I was approved only w.e.f. 03.10.1992 and the exemption from NET qualification was made applicable to the persons appointed after 13.03.1990 but before 14.05.1992. Even otherwise, Exhibit P-4 Government Order dated 16.11.1994 in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024 (in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024) was in respect of the teachers of the University and the affiliated/constituted Colleges and not in respect of the Librarian and other staffs of the Universities and affiliated Colleges. Even otherwise, Exhibit P-4 Government Order dated 16.11.1994 in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024 (in W.P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024) was in respect of the teachers of the University and the affiliated/constituted Colleges and not in respect of the Librarian and other staffs of the Universities and affiliated Colleges. When the Government declined the request of the petitioner, he filed W.P.(C) No. 10029 of 2010 questioning the order dated 06.11.2009 whereby the petitioner’s request to grant him UGC pay scale was rejected. This Court vide the Judgment dated 11.04.2011 observed that it was for the Government to consider the representation claiming the benefit of the order whereby the Government decided the higher grade of pay to the Librarian and also that the petitioner may place the materials showing that he is entitled for exemption from the UGC qualification. 4. In pursuance to the said liberty granted by this Court vide the Judgment dated 11.04.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10029 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation before the Government. However, the said representation came to be rejected by the Government vide the order dated 17.12.2012. It was stated that the Government Order dated 16.11.1994 was applicable to the Lecturers only and was not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said Government Order. 5. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Government dated 17.12.2012, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1598 of 2013 and prayed for setting aside the Government Order dated 17.12.2012 and a writ of mandamus directing the Government to provide the UGC scheme of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.09.2004. 6. This Court, vide the Judgment dated 09.02.2017 disposed of the said Government Order. This Court held that the petitioner who was appointed as Librarian Gr. I w.e.f. 14.05.1992 was also be eligible for the relaxation of the qualification extended to aided College teachers. The Government was directed to pass consequential orders. This Judgment of the learned Single Judge came to be challenged by the State Government in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017. This Court held that the petitioner who was appointed as Librarian Gr. I w.e.f. 14.05.1992 was also be eligible for the relaxation of the qualification extended to aided College teachers. The Government was directed to pass consequential orders. This Judgment of the learned Single Judge came to be challenged by the State Government in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017. The learned Division Bench vide the Judgment dated 10.04.2018 dismissed the writ appeal holding that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 15.12.2015 which prescribes that the persons who do not possess the UGC qualification would be entitled for higher grade on completion of 8 years, and thereafter, on completion of 16 years of service. Thus, the Division Bench had specifically held that the petitioner was not entitled for exemption from the UGC qualification to claim the higher grade of pay as admissible under the UGC and he would be entitled to higher grade on completion of 8 years and 16 years of service respectively in terms of the Government Order dated 15.12.2015 (Exhibit P-13 in W. P.(C) No. 18490 of 2024). 7. The petitioner thereafter filed the review petition before this Court as R. P. No. 490 of 2018 seeking review of the Judgment dated 10.04.2028 passed in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017. The said review petition was disposed of as under; “ 9. Eventhough we have heard the submissions of Shri Muhammed Haneef as afore, we are afraid that we cannot accede to it for the singular reason that even when the posts of teachers and Librarians were included in one category in Ext.P3 order, while the Government, excluding the requirement to possess UGC Regulations for Teachers through Ext.P5, a conscious decision appears to have been taken by it not to offer this exemption to the other categories in Ext.P3, viz., Librarians and Physical Education Teachers. It is pertinent that no one from these two excluded categories has ever approached this Court or the Government challenging or seeking review of Ext.P5 or for their inclusion through a similar order. However, the contention of the Review Petitioner before us is that it should be deemed that Ext.P5 is applicable to him. As we have already said, this is not a contention that can be acquiesced by us, since it is obvious from Ext.P5 that it takes in only the posts of teachers. However, the contention of the Review Petitioner before us is that it should be deemed that Ext.P5 is applicable to him. As we have already said, this is not a contention that can be acquiesced by us, since it is obvious from Ext.P5 that it takes in only the posts of teachers. If the Review petitioner wanted the benefits of Ext.P5, he should have appropriately represented to the Government or to have approached this Court and it is rather intriguing that, even as on this date, nothing has been placed before us to show that the petitioner has made a claim as such ; but still continues to assert vehemently that he is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5, solely because Ext.P3 order takes these two posts as one category. 13. The judgment, that is sought to be reviewed, was delivered by us, as we have already said above, holding that Ext.P13 order alone would be applicable to the claims of the writ petitioner, subject to the conditions therein. The findings of the learned single Judge, that Ext.P5 order applies to the writ petitioner was, therefore, not found favour by us. In that sense, certainly the appeal was partly allowed, if not fully. We, therefore, find some force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that in the judgment, the result ought to have been shown as it being allowed or at least disposed of, but not as having been dismissed. 14 . In the result, R.P.No.490/2018 is allowed to the afore limited extent but deem it only necessary to clarify that we had, in the judgment sought to be reviewed, allowed the contentions of the Government to the extent to which the learned single Judge had concluded that Exhibit P5 order is applicable to the writ petitioner. 15. After we completed dictation of this order, Sri.Muhammed Haneef, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in R.P.No.437/2018, prays that his client may be reserved liberty to approach the Government seeking that the benefits of Ext.P5 be extended to the case of Librarians also. 15. After we completed dictation of this order, Sri.Muhammed Haneef, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in R.P.No.437/2018, prays that his client may be reserved liberty to approach the Government seeking that the benefits of Ext.P5 be extended to the case of Librarians also. We do not have to reserve any specific liberty to the petitioner for this purpose, since it is always open to him to approach the competent Authority with such request but we make it clear that nothing contained in our judgment in the writ appeal or in this order would, in any manner, interdict or hamper the review petitioner in approaching the Government with his request as afore stated by his learned counsel. 16. Sri.Mohammed Haneef further requests this Court that the benefits granted by us, through our judgment sought to be reviewed, be directed to be paid to the petitioner at the earliest. This again is a matter that does not require specific orders from us; however, to ensure that substantial justice is obtained to the review petitioner also, we direct the Government to compute and pay the pensionary benefits to the review petitioner in R.P No.437/2018, taking into account the specific mandate of Ext.P13 order, with effect from the dates mentioned therein, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” The Government was directed to compute the benefit to the petitioner in the light of Government Order dated 15.12.2015 only. 8. The petitioner again submitted a representation before the Government stating the same facts and claiming the benefit of exemption notification of the State Government and the State Government again rejected the said representation vide the Order dated 02.12.2019. This Court fails to understand that once the review petition was dismissed and it was specifically held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 15.12.2015, how the petitioner filed the representation seeking the relief which was declined by the Division Bench vide the Judgment in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017 and the Single Bench vide the Judgment in R.P. No. 490 of 2018. Against the order dated 02.12.2019 passed on the representation dated 25.09.2018 of the petitioner, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 34674 of 2018 in which the direction was issued to the Government to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The said representation of the petitioner came to be rejected vide the order dated 02.12.2019 (Exhibit P-19 in W.P.(C) No. 13514 of 2021). The petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No. 1213 of 2020 before this Court impugning the decision of the Government in Exhibit P-19 on his representation. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Government whereby the petitioner was granted UGC benefit as a special case with the condition that the incumbent would not be eligible for any arrears of pay and pension. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 16.11.1994 (Exhibit P-4 in W.P.(C) No. 13514 of 2021) which was made applicable to the teachers/lecturers of the Universities and affiliated Colleges and, therefore, he should have been granted the revision of pay under the UGC scheme on completion of 6 years and 11 years. When such contention was specifically repelled by the Division Bench in the Judgment dated 10.04.2018 in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017 (Exhibit P-15 in W.P.(C) No. 13514 of 2021) as well as the Judgment passed in aforesaid R. P. No. 490 of 2018 dated 26.06.2018, such a contention is not open to the petitioner to advance before this Court. The issue stands settled way back by the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1396 of 2017 as well as the Judgment in R.P. No. 490 of 2018, the issue cannot be reopened in the present proceedings filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I find no substance in these writ petitions and, hence, the same are hereby dismissed. Cont. Case (C) No. 1534 of 2021 The contempt petition is hereby closed in terms of the Judgment of the W.P.(C) Nos. 13514 of 2021 and 18490 of 2024.