Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unknown vs Present on 7 December, 2016

Author: Anu Sivaraman

Bench: Anu Sivaraman

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                 FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939

                                  WP(C).No. 33047 of 2017

PETITIONER(S)


1     LAKSHMIKANTH L R,
      COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

2     RAGLAL R.,
      COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

3     SHAMNAS K.S.,
      COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

4     ATHIRA APPUKUTTAN,
      COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

5     VIDYA G.NAIR,
      COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

6     BENOJ CHERIAN,
      HARDWARE ENGINEER (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.

7     ANISH CHACKO,
      SYSTEM ANALYST (ON CONTRACT), MAHATMA GANDHI
      UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
      KOTTAYAM-686008.


      BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
              SRI.S.SUJIN



PBS
WP(C).No. 33047 of 2017


RESPONDENT(S):

1.    MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
      REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
      ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686008.

2.    REGISTRAR,
      MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
      ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686008.

      BY   SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2018,
      THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



PBS
WP(C).No. 33047 of 2017 (E)

                                    APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1-      TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD.15/01/2011 OF THE
                 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2-      TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED TO
                 THE 5TH PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3-      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
                 DTD.31/05/2011.

EXHIBIT P4-      TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
                 RESPONDENT DTD.10/01/2017.

EXHIBIT P5-      TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA.793/2013 DATED
                 07/12/2016.

EXHIBIT P6- IN I.A. NO.20861/2017:    TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
                PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED NIL INVITING
                APPLICATTIONS

EXHIBIT P6-     TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2011 OF THE 2ND
                RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2017 OF THE MAHATMA
                GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P8      TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED
                16.11.2016 SHOWING THE HIERARCHY OF POSTS IN CETEX.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS


EXHIBIT R1(A)   THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST
                PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.



                                                /TRUE COPY/


                                                 PA TO JUDGE

PBS

                       ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                     W.P.(C).No.33047 of 2017
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              Dated this the 9th day of February, 2018

                            JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to respondents to grant the benefits of scale of pay that is being granted to similarly placed persons under the respondent-University. It is submitted that the petitioners have been continuing from 2009 onwards on a contract basis as non-teaching staff. It is stated that the first 5 petitioners are appointed on contract as Computer Programmers, while the 6th petitioner is appointed as Hardware Engineer and the 7 th petitioner was appointed as System Analyst on contract basis. The petitioners contend that they are being granted only consolidated pay and that they are entitled to a scale of pay and equal emoluments as persons appointed against similar posts under the University. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that contract of three of the petitioners has expired and since there was no proposal to fill up the posts held by the petitioners, they would be entitled to continue in service. W.P.(C).No.33047 of 2017 2 Awaiting instructions from the University in this writ petition, interim orders were granted permitting the petitioners to continue in service.

2. A detailed statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent with an application to vacate the interim orders already granted. It is contended by the University that the petitioners have been appointed specifically on contract basis on being fully aware that they would have no claim for regularisation. It is stated that the petitioners' appointments are not against sanctioned posts and the petitioners also have no claim for any regular scale of pay, since the posts to which the petitioners have been appointed on contract basis have not been duly sanctioned. It is further contended that a full selection process has been conducted to engage Computer Programmers, System Analysts, Hardware Engineer etc. on contract basis and a list has also been drawn up by the University. It is stated that since the term of contract of some of the petitioner had already expired, there is no justification in the directions issued to continue their services. W.P.(C).No.33047 of 2017 3

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also fully qualified for appointment and their claims for continuance may be considered before their services are terminated.

4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the claim raised by the petitioners for continuance and also for a scale of pay is to be considered by the University in accordance with law. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the University to consider the request made by the petitioners for continuance and scale of pay and to pass orders thereon, after hearing the petitioners also within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners whose contracts have expired shall not be sent out from service before orders are passed as directed above.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj9/2