Kerala High Court
Dr. Emmanual Unni Kalapurakal vs Government Of Kerala on 26 September, 2025
2025:KER:72516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 4TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29245 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
DR. EMMANUAL UNNI KALAPURAKAL,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.K.A. LEONS, VRA 5, "ANUGRAHA", VETTUVILA LANE,
KANNAMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
011, NOW RESIDING AT 7123, RUDISILL CT. 2A, WINDSOR
MILL, ,MARYLAND, 21244, USA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.M.GEORGE
KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
NEAR MCRV HOSTEL, HOSPITAL ROAD, M.G. ROAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM 682 011.
4 MANAGER,
ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE, HIGH COURT P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 018
5 THE PRINCIPAL,
ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE, HIGH COURT P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 108
6 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A &E)
NEAR SECRETARIAT, STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -2-
2025:KER:72516
695 001
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.07.2025, THE COURT ON 26.09.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -3-
2025:KER:72516
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2025 Petitioner submits that after rendering an unblemished service he retired on 23.01.2006 while working as Lecturer in Zoology (Selection Grade) from St.Albert's College, Ernakulam. Petitioner has raised several grievances in the above writ petition. One of which is that the petitioner was granted pension only with effect from 10.05.2015 on the ground that he has submitted his application for pension belatedly and that by virtue of Rule 110 Part III KSR his claim for pension with effect from the date of retirement cannot be granted.
2. Petitioner submits that his qualifying pensionary service was reckoned as 14 years only instead of 19 years. His period of service as Junior Lecturer in the leave vacancy period i.e. from 19.07.1971 to 31.03.1972 though followed by regular appointment in the said post in the same scale of pay and in the same college with effect from 01.09.1973 and the period of leave without allowances taken for study purpose for doing MPhil (01.02.1974 to 31.01.1975) and PhD (29.10.1976 to 19.12.1976 and 02.06.1980 to 31.10.1982) were not reckoned as part of his pensionary service based on Rule 14E(b) of Part III KSR and Rule 91 and 91A of Part I WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -4- 2025:KER:72516 KSR. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that though the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Reader while UGC scheme was introduced in the State in 1990 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986 his initial UGC placement was given only in the post of Lecturer Senior Grade with effect from 01.01.1986 and as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 10.02.1987 and the same was modified further adversely by postponing his promotion to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer to 10.02.1988 i.e. 12 years after his retirement. Further, three advancements given for PhD degree holders was also denied to him. Petitioner also contended that he was imposed a liability of Rs.9,402/- on 13.03.2018 for not having submitted his thesis in time. Challenging the rejection of these benefits due to the petitioner vide Exts.P14, P18, P15, P11, P13, P13(a), P9, P10 and P27, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier filing WP(C) No.28749 of 2020 and the case was disposed of as per Ext.P17 judgment dated 22.12.2020, wherein the petitioner's representation was directed to be considered by the Government. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P17 judgment Ext.P18 Government order was issued on 07.09.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P18 order after filing of the present writ petition challenging the said order a fresh order has been issued by the WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -5- 2025:KER:72516 Government as per Ext.P30 dated 21.12.2021 stating fresh reason for rejecting his Ext.P16 representation. Thereupon, the present writ petition was amended incorporating a challenge against Ext.P30 Government order dated 21.12.2021.
3. The learned Government Pleader based on the counter affidavit filed submits that the claim raised by the petitioner in Ext.P16 was duly considered by the Government, and on finding that the claim raised is not sustainable in accordance with law, the same was rejected as per Exts.P18 and P30. It is further submitted that petitioner is responsible for the delay which has occurred in the belated submission of the application for pension and that as per the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Government orders, petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.
4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner raises the following questions for consideration:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of his retirement or only with effect from 10.05.2015.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reckon his qualifying pensionary service as 19 years instead of 14 years. In other words, whether his provisional service and LWAs taken for WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -6- 2025:KER:72516 MPhil and PhD can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the post of Reader with effect from 01.01.1986 and is entitled to three advance increments based upon his PhD.
4. Whether the imposition of penalty of Rs.9,402/- is justifiable under fact and law.
As regards the first issue raised by the petitioner it is contended that he was granted pension only with effect from 10.05.2015 vide Ext.P14 Government order dated 25.09.2017 for the reason that he had applied for pension only on that day and that there is no administrative delay in sanctioning the pension. On a perusal of Ext.P18 Government order whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected the Government has relied on Rule 110 of Part III KSR to substantiate their stand. Petitioner would contend that later while Ext.P13 modified order was issued in addition to Rule 110 Rule 120 Part III KSR was also invoked to substantiate the said decision.
5. Petitioner relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another [MANU/SC/0801/2013] and the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. Smt.Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameshwari [(2021) 11 SCC 543] WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -7- 2025:KER:72516 submits that pension is her right to property coming under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be curtailed, saved by authority of law. Petitioner would submit that the Rule 110 of Part III KSR was misconstrued by the Government for denying the benefit to the petitioner. Petitioner would submit that Rule 110 mandates that every Government employee should submit his formal application for pension atleast one year in advance from the date of his anticipated retirement. Rule 109 mandates that every Head of Department shall have a list prepared every six months on the 1st January and the 1st July each year of all gazetted and non- gazetted Government employees who are due to retire in the next 12 to 18 months of that day, a copy of the list shall be supplied to the audit officer concerned not later than 31 st January or the 31st July as the case may be at the said year. Relying on Rule 115 A the petitioner would further submit that, as a first step the Head of the Office shall send every non-gazetted Government employee a notice requiring him to furnish a formal application one year in advance with relevant documents. Thereafter, the Head of Office shall draw attention of the retiring Government employee with the provisions of Rule 119. Thereafter, going by Rule 115 (b) the Head of Office shall fill in, in accordance with the instructions in Form 3, the first two pages of Form 2 irrespective of the fact whether a WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -8- 2025:KER:72516 formal application for pension is received from the Government employee or not and proceed further. Based on the said Rules, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit relying on Rule 119 of Part III KSR that an ordinary pension is payable from the date on which the petitioner ceased to be borne on the establishment, and the entitlement of the petitioner is for an ordinary pension under Rule 119 and not under Rule 120 which is pertaining to special cases. Rule 120 specifies that Rule 119 deals with ordinary and not special cases, and if under special circumstances the pension is granted (after three years) an employee had retired retrospective effect could not be given to him without the special order of the Government which is granted him in the absence of a special order, such a pension take effect only from the date of sanction. On the basis of same, it is contended that Rule 120 has no application at all inasmuch as Rule 120 applies to special grant of pension as a special case, but the case of the petitioner for grant of pension is covered by Rule 119.
6. Petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. P.V. Pappan and Others [MANU/KE/0592/2021], especially paragraph 9 and 15 of the said judgment which reads as follows:-
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -9-
2025:KER:72516 "9. There cannot be any quarrel in the stipulation in Rule 119 of Part III KSR that an ordinary pension is taken from the date on which the pensioner ceased to be borne on the establishment.
However, it is qualified with the condition that apart from special orders an ordinary pension is payable from the date on which the pensioner ceased to be borne on the establishment. Therefore a combined reading of Rule 119 and Rule 120 of Part III KSR would indicate that according to understanding of the rule making authority Rule 119 applies to ordinary cases. Under special cases and if under special circumstances a pension is granted long after the employee has retired, retrospective effect should not be given to him without special order of the Government which granted it and in the absence of special order the said pension takes effect only from the date of sanction as per Rule 120. Strictly speaking, the adverse scenario envisaged in the second limb of Rule 120 of the Part II KSR would come into play only if the reasons for the delay in submitting the pension papers is solely on account of the fault of the pensioner concerned and that if he had submitted the pension papers immediately after his retirement, there was no legal impediment whatsoever for the authorities concerned to consider and pass orders on the sanction of pension, etc. In the instant case, since even the regularisation of the suspension period has been rendered long after the judgment of acquittal and even the formal orders regarding determination of last pay and pay fixation has been done only as late as on 30.12.2013 as per Annexure A2 and on 13.8.2014 as per Annexure A3 order. The Tribunal has rightly held that nothing would have materialised, even if the applicant had submitted the pension immediately thereafter.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -10-
2025:KER:72516
15. Further, there is a cardinal aspect of the matter, which is that it is well established that pension is a property of the pensioner and the right to property guaranteed in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, can be deprived only in accordance with a procedure established by law, which is just, fair and reasonable. We do not have the slightest doubt that in the instance, the deprivation of the property right of the applicant on the basis of the above said aspects, cannot be said to be on the basis of a procedure, that is just and reasonable. Hence the impugned action is illegal and is also ultra vires the provisions in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. "
Petitioner would further submit that though petitioner was granted UGC placement on 24.12.1990 as per Ext.P9 the UGC pay fixation was made only on 19.12.2014 as per the recording in Ext.P2 service book i.e. his pay was fixed 24 years after the UGC placement and 9 years after the retirement. Because of the said reason the pension papers he had submitted earlier on 10.09.2009 evidenced by Ext.P23 evoke no response. It was only after his UGC pay fixation that he could submit his pension application in proper form as demanded by the 5th respondent Principal vide Ext.P24 letter dated 23.01.2012, wherein it is stated that only after getting sanction of the UGC revision and only after that they can prepare the pension papers. Petitioner further relying on Rule 115(a) of Part III KSR would submit that it was the duty of the Head of Office to send him notice requiring him to submit his pension application one year in advance WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -11- 2025:KER:72516 but no such notice was issued till date. It is on the basis of the above contention, petitioner would contend that there is no factual basis in the orders impugned to hold that the petitioner is solely responsible for the delay in submitting his pension application. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Government has not considered the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits from the date of his retirement in a proper perspective especially in the light of the judgment of this Court in P.V. Pappan's case cited supra and therefore the matter requires reconsideration.
7. As regards the second relief sought for by the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to reckon his qualifying pensionary service as 19 years instead of 14 years, and that by counting his provisional service and LWAs taken for MPhil and PhD for reckoning the qualifying service for pension. Petitioner relying on Ext.P35 the 3rd Kerala Pay Commission order relying on Note 12 to Rule 8 submits that in accordance with the said Rule, the petitioner's leave vacancy period of service ought to have been reckoned as part of his pensionary service. Petitioner would further submit that as per decision No.2 to Rule 33 Part I KSR the provisional service followed by regular appointment in the same category of post is to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Petitioner submits that his leave vacancy period from 19.07.1971 to WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -12- 2025:KER:72516 31.03.1972 in the post of Junior Lecturer was followed by regular appointment on 01.09.1973 in the same post, and the same scale of pay, and at the same College. Petitioner submits that though the said decision was deleted with effect from 01.10.1994 it will not affect the period of the vacancy of the petitioner which was much before. Petitioner further relies on Ext.P38 Government order dated 02.04.1983 regarding the reckoning of qualifying service for non- cadre Grade - II Professorship broken periods of qualifying service ought to have been reckoned for promotion.
8. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam and Others v. Esthappan Cherian and Another [MANU/SC/0604/2021] and also the judgment Shobana K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [MANU/KE/0208/004]; Dr.George Justine v. State of Kerala and Another [WP(C) No.30917 of 2012] and submits that the entire period of service covered by Exts.P1 to P4 orders should be noted towards qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension, and that he is entitled for his pensionary benefits recomputed and refixed reckoning the broken steps of service covered by Exts.P1 and P4 orders towards qualifying service. Petitioner submits that the provisional service was reckoned till Rule 14E(b) of KSR was introduced on 28.09.2009 WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -13- 2025:KER:72516 which was the law governing the field law relating to the provisional service till the law came to be changed by the decision of this Court in Shameer Ali E. v. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam and Others [MANU/KE/1166/18]. Petitioner would contend that though Rule 14E(b) is introduced with retrospective effect from 30.07.1979, the same is not applicable to the petitioner's case as his provisional service (19.07.1971 to 31.03.1972) is much prior to 30.07.1979. Petitioner would further submit that he is entitled to the same benefits as accorded to the similarly placed teacher Dr.George Justine, petitioner in WP(C) No.30917 of 2012. In support of the said contention petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Maharaj Krishnan Bhatt and Another v. State of Jammu Kashmir and Others [(2008) 9 SCC 24], and based on the same it is the contention of the petitioner that once the judgment has attained finality the benefit must be granted to similarly placed persons, and on the basis of the same petitioner submits that he is entitled for his provisional service reckoned as qualifying service for pension as was done in the case of Dr.Justin. In support of the contention petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology [MANU/SC/1173/2021]. As regards the LWAs period available for WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -14- 2025:KER:72516 study purpose i.e. for MPhil from 01.02.1974 to 31.01.1975 the objection raised by the Government is that the said period availed for undergoing MPhil is a date prior to the introduction of Rule 91A in KSR Part I vide GO(P) No.204/1976 dated 15.07.1976. Petitioner's contention is that Rule 91 was in force then and that could have been applied to the case of the petitioner. In support of the contention petitioner relies on the judgment in Gisha Marian Jose v. State of Kerala [MANU/KE/3523/2022] and also the judgment in Bindu v. State of Kerala [(2021) SCC OnLine Ker 6424]. Petitioner submits that an acquisition of a superior qualification benefit is to be considered in the light of Note 2 to Rule 91 of Part I KSR. Petitioner would further contend that the said LWA period was already reckoned for his promotion as Lecturer with effect from 01.09.1974 vide Ext.P4 and also note in Ext.P2 service book and was also reckoned for promotion as Professor Grade II as per Ext.P6, as evident from Ext.P2 service book without any objection raised during the entire tenure of service. As regards reckoning of period of LWA for PhD purpose for the period from 29.10.1976 to 19.12.1976 and for a further period of 02.06.1980 to 31.10.1982, the reason stated by the 1st respondent is that PhD does not come under the ambit of Rule 91A or it is not a post-graduate course as evident from Ext.P18 order. Petitioner would contend that the scope WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -15- 2025:KER:72516 and prospects of the superior qualification for the post especially for an academic course cannot be restricted to post-graduation or below only, and what is to be looked into is whether superior qualification enhances the usefulness of the Government servant as a member of the service and improve the prospects in the service of which he is a member.
9. Petitioner further raise a contention based on Rule 31 of Part III KSR that the petitioner's broken period of service ought to have been reckoned. Petitioner would submit that in Ext.P2 service book it is not at all noted that the period of LWA taken for study purpose will not be reckoned for any service benefit. Therefore, it is contended that by virtue of Rule 31 Part III KSR and other provisions of law already mentioned petitioner's leave vacancy period is to be regarded as part of his pensionary service, especially when the leave without allowance period for availing M.Phil and PhD were reckoned for the petitioner's promotion to the post of Professor Grade II, and that the broken period of service LWAs were also reckoned. On the basis of the above said submission the petitioner would contend that if the period of 13 years and 15 days which he had completed as on 01.09.1985 is added to the rest of period of service rendered in the College i.e. 4 years 8 months and 46 days (excluding leave vacancy period) is added to the total service which WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -16- 2025:KER:72516 is 17 years and 10 months, and when leave vacancy period of 8 months 57 days is added to this, a grant total of his pensionary service is 18 years 7 months and 17 days. i.e. approximately 19 years. It is on the basis of the same petitioner submits that he is entitled to reckon his qualifying pensionary service as 19 years.
10. To the 3rd claim made by the petitioner that he is entitled to the post of Reader with effect from 01.01.1986 and entitled to three advance increments based upon his pay scale the petitioner would submit that the UGC scheme was implemented in the State in 1990 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986 and the petitioner was given intitial placement as Senior Grade Lecturer on 01.01.1986 and as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 10.02.1987 as per Ext.P9 order dated 24.12.1990 and considering the credential of the petitioner that he was having MPhil and PhD and having five official peer revised articles in high impact journals as evident from Ext.P7 and having attitue 3 advance courses as evident from Ext.P8 series he was entitled to initial UGC placement in the post of Reader instead of that initial placement was given in the post of Senior Grade Lecturer with effect from 01.01.1986 and promotion as Senior Grade Lecturer only with effect from 10.02.1987. Petitioner would submit that even his promotion to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 10.02.1987 was WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -17- 2025:KER:72516 postponed by one more year to 10.02.1988 as per Ext.P10 order, and that is 22 years after his initial UGC placement made on 24.12.1990. Petitioner would further submit that Ext.P9 order in his favour was modified adversely against him that too without an opportunity of being heard violating the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contend that though the 1 st respondent admits the eligibility to the post of Reader in Ext.P30 order, but at the same time declined three advance increments which he is entitled to as per UGC regulation as per Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that in Dr.V.K. Krishnan v. State of Kerala [WP(C) No.12258 of 2010] and Dr.T.C. Kumari v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(C) No.13563 of 2014] case, the said benefit has been granted to the petitioners therein. On the basis of the same, petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the post of Reader with effect from 01.01.1986 and entitled to draw three advance increments based upon his PhD.
11. The 3rd grievance raised by the petitioner is as to whether the imposition of penalty of Rs.9,402/- is justifiable. Petitioner would submit that he is a reputed academician and researcher who for has rendered unblemished service in the College and was fastened liability for an amount of Rs.9,402/- on 13.03.2018 for not submitting the thesis in time vide Ext.P27 i.e. 12 WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -18- 2025:KER:72516 years after his retirement without even giving an opportunity of being heard. Petitioner took 5 years 2 months and 29 days to submit his PhD thesis i.e. he took just two months and 29 days more than the period of five years allowed as per Ext.P6. Petitioner submits that no show cause notice was issued to him and imposition of penalty at this distance of time of 12 years that too without an opportunity of being heard is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Further, it is contended that since the liability has been fixed 12 years after his retirement going by note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR, no liability can be fixed upon an employee three years after his retirement. Petitioner also relies on Article 303A and 303B(ii) of the Kerala Financial Code contend for the reason that the liability now fixed does not come under the General Principles and Procedures for fixing and imposing liability for losses upon a Government servant. Petitioner would conted that though such valid contentions were raised by the petitioner, none of these contentions nor the judgments in support of his contentions were considered while issuing Exts.P18 and P30 orders.
Taking into consideration the above contentions raised by the petitioner and on a perusal of Exts.P18 and P30 Government orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner raised in Ext.P16, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1 st WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -19- 2025:KER:72516 respondent taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, the judgments and Rules cited in support of the claim. Accordingly above writ petition is disposed of as follows:-
1. Exts.P18 and P30 orders passed by the 1st respondent Government are set aside.
2. Ext.P16 request submitted by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the 1st respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the provisions of law relied on by the petitioner, judgments referred to in the judgment, and any other document to be submitted by the petitioner in support of his contentions, along with an argument note to be submitted by the petitioner.
3. A decision in this regard shall be taken as directed above without any delay at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -20-
2025:KER:72516
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29245/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AS
JUNIOR LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY (LEAVE
VACANCY) , ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE,
ERNAKULAM, DATED 19.07.1971.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MPHIL DEGREE CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.12.1979 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MPHIL RANK CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 5.4.1976 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY, ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, DATED 28.08.1974.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.01.1985 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BANGALORE.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
494/B4/87/ACAD. DATED 22.9.1987 OF THE
GANDHIJI UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PUBLISHED FIVE
PEER- REVIEWED ARTICLES IN HIGH IMPACT
FACTOR JOURNALS.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE IN THE TRAINING COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, IISC, BANGALORE, DATED 30.06.1988.
Exhibit P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE IN THE TRAINING COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, IISC, BANGALORE, DATED 31.7.1989.
Exhibit P8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITONER'S PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE IN THE TRAINING COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, IISC, BANGALORE, DATED WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -21- 2025:KER:72516 31.09.1990.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE UGC SPL. CELL II ORDER
NO. 2/30737/90/COLL. EDN. DATED
24.12.1990.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER NO. UGC
CELL-3/15041/2010/CO. EDN. DATED
22.08.2012.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
M1/41914/2016/COLL. EDN. DATED 1.11.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH CALCULATION SHEET SHOWING QUALIFYING ALONG WITH CALCULATION SHEET SHOWING QUALIFYING SERVICE.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT NO.
P.R. 2101791065 DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT NO.
PR 2101791065 DATED 14.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER OF
THE 6TH RESPONDENT LETTER NO.
P10/1/1017371794/2101791065/14 DATED
17.05.2018.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO.
1708/2017/H.EDN. DATED 25.09.2017.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PPO NO. 111311050 DATED
08.02.2018 OF AG.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED
16.04.2020.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.12.2020 IN W.P. C NO. 28749/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 1171/2/H.
EDN. DATED 07.09.2021.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO. 543/89/FIN.
DATED 20.11.1989.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO. 72/2005/FIN.
DATED 30.12.2005.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F1 21/87 U.I
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MHRD, DATED
22.07.1988
Exhibit P21(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 79/90/H. EDN.
DATED 27.3.1990.
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -22-
2025:KER:72516
Exhibit P21(B) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO. 128/90/H.
EDN. DATED 29.05.1990.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 23.04.2004
OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P22(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO
PRINCIPAL, DATED 02.10.2006.
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO
THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 10.08.2009.
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GL/P/35/2012
DATED 23.01.2012 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL,
ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. F3/372/2017,
H.EDN. DATED 04.06.2019 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ''TRANSACTION ALERT',
ISSUED BY THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, DATED
9.12.2020.
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
F3/40853/2017/COLL. EDN. DATED 13.03.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FIXING A LIABILITY OF RS. 9402/- UPON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 08.08.2018 OF REMITTANCE OF RS. 9402/-
Exhibit P28(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 31.10.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY MANAGER, ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) Exhibit R1(a):True copy of the G.O(Rt)No.1698/2021 H.Edn dated 21-12- 2021.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE
DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM
ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS),
ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
WP(C) No.29245 of 2021 -23-
2025:KER:72516
Exhibit R1(b) Exhibit R1(b):True copy of letter
No.F3/3842/2021/DCEDDEKM dated 07.04.2022 Exhibit R1(c) Exhibit R1(c):True copy of the judgment dated 15-12-2021 Exhibit R1(a) Exhibit R1(a):True copy of the G.O(Rt)No.1698/2021 H.Edn dated 21-12- 2021.
Exhibit R1(b) Exhibit R1(b):True copy of letter No.F3/3842/2021/DCEDDEKM dated 07.04.2022 Exhibit R1(c) Exhibit R1(c):True copy of the judgment dated 15-12-2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P30 True copy of the G.O. (Rt.) No.1698/2021/ H.Edn. dated 21/12/2021 Exhibit-P31 True copy of the G.O.(P) No.366/2009/ Fin dated 28/08/2009 Exhibit-P32 True copy of the G.O. (MS) No:209/96/ HEdn. dated 24-12-1996 Exhibit-P33 True copy of the Letter No. 21955/D1/90/Edn. dated 07/06/1990 sent by Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education to the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram Exhibit-P34 True copy of the G.O. (P) No.303/70/Fin dated 12/05/1970 Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE G.O(P) 860/78/FIN DATED 16.12.1978 Exhibit P38 True copy of the GO MS No.63/83/ H.Edn.
dated 02.04.1983 along with true typed legible copy Exhibit-P36 True copy of the bond executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Government on 31.08.1979 along with true typed legible copy Exhibit P37 True copy of Government order GO(MS)No.23/83/H.Edn. dated 31.01.1983