Kerala High Court
Sincy P.S vs Institute Of Human Resources ... on 22 January, 2025
2025:KER:5741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11136 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
SINCY P.S.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
WIFE OF TITTY JACOB, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.K.V.GEORGE
SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRAJOS TOWERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
2 THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT,PRAJOS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE PRINCIPAL, MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682021.
BY ADV SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD
W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 2 2025:KER:5741
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.JAYAN,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 3 2025:KER:5741
JUDGMENT
The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent herein, a Society, from 18.06.1999, pursuant to Ext.P1, at the Polytechnic, Painavu. Later, with respect to the institutions run by the 1st respondent, there was a bifurcation between Engineering Colleges/ Polytechincs. The teaching faculty were given an option to chose between the Engineering colleges and the Polytechnics. The petitioner states that she chose to continue in the Engineering Colleges. However, on account of lack of vacancies, it is stated, petitioner was posted at Polytechnic, Painavu. Later, pursuant to Ext.P2 the petitioner was posted to the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakkara.
2. It may straight away be noticed that in Ext.P2, the petitioner is stated to be eligible for State Government pay alone. Later, by Ext.P3 dated 29.05.2010, petitioner is appointed as a Lecturer with the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakkara.
3. Though, the petitioner was extended the AICTE scale of pay in Ext.P3, his service from 18.06.1999 (Ext.P1) to 06.05.2010 (up to the date of Ext.P3) was not reckoned for AICTE benefits.
W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 4 2025:KER:5741
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought afore benefits essentially relying on Exts.P4/P5 proceedings of 1 st respondent. This Court by Ext.P7, directed the 1 st respondent to consider the claim with specific reference to Exts.P4/P5. But, the 1st respondent declined the benefits again by Ext.P8.
5. In the second round of litigation, this Court by Ext.P9 judgment, noticing that in spite of specific direction, Exts.P4 and P5 were not referred to, set aside Ext.P8, directing a fresh consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent herein. The resultant order issued by 1st respondent-Ext.P10 dated 11.02.2019 - rejecting the claim, again not referring to Exts.P4 / P5, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
6. In the normal course, insofar as Exts.P4 and P5 is not considered in Ext.10, this Court should set aside Ext.P10 directing a fresh consideration. But, this Court notices that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court on two occasions and inspite of specific directions, 1st respondent has refused to look into Exts.P4 and P5. Therefore, this Court proceeds to consider the claim raised by the petitioner qua Exts.P4 / P5 in the captioned writ petition.
7. I have heard Sri. B. Ashok Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 5 2025:KER:5741 Standing Counsel for the respondents herein.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B. Ashok Shenoy relies on Exts.P4 and P5, as also the benefits extended to a similar teacher, evidenced by Ext.P12.
9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents herein would contend that the period prior to 2010 was representing the service of the petitioner in a non-engineering college. The learned counsel also refers to Ext.P2 appointment order to state that even from 2005 onwards, the order binds the petitioner as regards his/her entitlement for State Government pay alone. He also invites the attention of this Court to Ext.R1(b) to contend that the petitioner came to be appointed to a permanent post only pursuant to Ext.R1(b) in the year 2010 and hence his service for the earlier periods are not to be reckoned for AICTE benefits.
10. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.
11. Ext.P4 dated 30.11.2001 is issued by the 1 st respondent herein, seeking to implement the AICTE scheme as regards the faculty members of the 1 st respondent herein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
"The 71st meeting of the Executive Committee has W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 6 2025:KER:5741 further resolved that the period between 01.01.1996 and 01.06.1999 spent by an employee in IHRD institutions other than Engineering Colleges shall be treated as service spent in Engineering Colleges for the purpose of fixation of pay as per the AICTE scheme on condition that no arrears of salary shall be given for that protected period as per the AICTE scale of pay. The above protection shall be applicable for those who had opted for engineering College service and have been working in IHRD engineering Colleges from 01.06.1999 onwards."
12. The afore paragraph in the 1st portion seeks to consider the service rendered by an employee in IHRD institutions other than the engineering colleges as the service rendered in engineering colleges for AICTE fixation of pay, however, with a condition that he shall not be entitled to arrears of salary. The 2 nd portion extend the afore benefits to those who are in the engineering college services and have been working in the IHRD Engineering Colleges from 01.06.1999 onwards. In my opinion, insofar the petitioner has admittedly made an option to continue in Engineering College Services and was accommodated in the Polytechnics only for want of an appropriate vacancy, his case would definitely fall under the afore portion of Ext.P4 order issued by the 1 st respondent. Her service in the IHRD institution (Polytechnic, Painavu) is hence entitled W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 7 2025:KER:5741 to consideration for the purpose of fixation under the AICTE Scheme.
13. True, by virtue of the afore, the petitioner would not be entitled for the arrears of salary. However, she would be entitled for notional inclusion of the afore service period for other service benefits.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had taken up a further contention that insofar as the petitioner was accommodated only in a temporary post till 2010, she is not entitled for the afore benefits. But, a reading of Ext.P4 does not make any differentiation as regards the service put in, in a temporary post or a permanent post. Ext.P4 order only speaks about the service put in by a claimant without making any differentiation as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent herein. In such circumstances, the afore contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is only to be recorded and rejected.
15. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed by setting aside Ext.P10 issued by the 1 st respondent and declaring that the petitioner would be entitled for AICTE benefits by reckoning the period from 18.06.1999 to 06.05.2010, out of which the period up to 31.08.2005 would only be reckoned for notional W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 8 2025:KER:5741 benefits.
The afore benefits to be extended to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from today.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 9 2025:KER:5741 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11136/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/3810/99/HRD DATED 7.6.1999 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/8408/2005/HRD DATED 23.8.2005 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EA3/6371/2010/HRD DATED 29.5.2010 ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E2/5113/2000/HRD DATED 30.11.2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E2/5113/2000/HRD DATED 23.2.2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.2018 IN WP(C) NO.2318 OF 2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EA3/1274/2018/HRD DATED 6.4.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2018 IN WP(C) NO.26379 OF 2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EA3/1274/2018/HRD DATED 11.2.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN AICTE SCALES SANCTIONED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO SAJITHA S. W.P.(C)No.11136 of 2019 10 2025:KER:5741 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN AICTE SCALES SANCTIONED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO K.VIJAYALAKSHMI.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EA3/11649/2013/HRD(1) DATED 31.01.2023 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EA3/11649/2013/HRD(2) DATED 31.01.2023 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.08.2005 EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2010 EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
E2/5113/2000/HRD DATED 30.11.2001