National Institute Of Technology, ... vs Commander (Dr) Shamasundra M S on 10 February, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

National Institute Of Technology, ... vs Commander (Dr) Shamasundra M S on 10 February, 2026

The respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.15409 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st respondent herein-petitioner was serving as Registrar of National Institute of Technology (NIT) Calicut and a retired officer of the Indian Navy in the rank of Commander. The NIT, Calicut, which is an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Education, Govt of India, notified the recruitment of Registrar on 20.09.2021. The 1st respondent was still in naval service then and submitted his application, and pursuant thereto, he appeared for the selection process and an interview on 24.01.2022 at NIT, Calicut, on hybrid mode before a Selection Committee. Based on the recommendations of Selection Committee he was initially offered the post of Registrar, NIT Calicut for a term of five years on deputation in the scale of pay, fixed in the pay band 4 of Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 10000/- as per the terms and W.A.No.2192 of 2025 4 2026:KER:10609 conditions of a contract of service, which was to be executed between the 1st respondent and the Director, NIT Calicut. This appointment was to take effect from the date of the 1st respondent joining duty at NIT Calicut. The 1st respondent was a serving naval officer, and hence his appointment as Registrar was initially sought on deputation for 5 years. However, the same was refused by the IHQ MoD (Navy) or Naval Headquarters. After repeated correspondence between the NIT, Calicut and the Naval HQ, a special arrangement was made between the two organisations, and eventually he was allowed to join on deputation for three months, followed by continuation on post upon Pre-Mature Retirement from the Navy. The Director, NIT, Calicut, duly accepted the proposition, and the 1st respondent joined NIT, Calicut. The 1st respondent's performance was exceptional, and he, as Registrar, brought about noticeable changes in the functioning by introducing effective and transparent practices in NIT, Calicut, which were appreciated by one and all. However, in 2025, certain differences arose between the Director, NIT, Calicut and the 1st respondent over a few official issues, especially financial management, administrative matters and recruitment W.A.No.2192 of 2025 5 2026:KER:10609 procedures being implemented by the Director. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent is being harassed continuously through retributive actions in one or another manner. The 1st respondent was put into pecuniary loss by way of illegally deducting the pension part, even though the contract did not provide for the same, and this issue has been referred to the Ministry of Education for clarification by the Director himself in an earlier correspondence. The 1st respondent was threatened with the recovery of dearness relief, that too from retrospective effect. The statutory authority and powers vested in the Registrar, as per the provisions of the Act, Statutes, and relevant regulations, have been arbitrarily and unlawfully divested by the Director, NIT Calicut. A new post of Dean (Faculty and Student Welfare/FSW), which finds no sanction under the existing statutory framework, has been created in violation of the law, and the entire administrative authority and functional responsibilities of the Registrar have been irregularly conferred upon the said Dean. The 1st respondent was served with a Show Cause Notice on 24.03.2025, seeking why his services as Registrar should not be terminated, and Dearness Relief paid to him should be recovered. His office was arbitrarily shifted from the W.A.No.2192 of 2025 6 2026:KER:10609 main administrative block, and staff members have been expressly dissuaded, under threat, from visiting, communicating with, or interacting with him. The 1st respondent invoked Section 29 of the NITSER Act, 2007, seeking reference of the dispute to a Tribunal of Arbitration on two issues, including deduction of pension/dearness relief, and the content and manner of issuance of the Show Cause Notice by the Director. However, no response has been received to that request. In the meantime, the 1 st respondent continued to face unwarranted humiliation, with his integrity and dignity being publicly undermined. With these pleadings, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.15409 of 2025, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

"(i)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext P 5, P 6 and P15 issued by 1st Respondent and quash the same ;

(ii)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd Respondent to consider the petition for reference to Tribunal of Arbitration under section 29 of the NIT SER Act, 2007, Ext.P17,

(iii)Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other W.A.No.2192 of 2025 7 2026:KER:10609 appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent to consider and take a reasoned decision on the letter bearing No.NITC/DIR/257/2024-25 dated 02.12.2024, Ext P10 with respect to the fixation of the Petitioner's pay and allowances in accordance with the applicable rules and provisions."

2.1. In the writ petition, on behalf of the appellants- respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2025 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for, and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents.

3. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2025, disposed of the writ petition by issuing certain directions. Paragraphs 3 to 6 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"3. As the petitioner put in his papers and the Board of Governors of NIT has accepted his resignation on 02.07.2025, prayer No.1 does not survive. However, the question which remains to be answered is in respect of the prayer Nos.2 and 3.

4. "The National Institute of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007" was amended in the year 2012. The Section 29 of the said Act provides for referring any dispute arising out of a contract between an Institute and any of its employees on the request of the employee to a W.A.No.2192 of 2025 8 2026:KER:10609 Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed by the Institute, one member nominated by the employee, and an umpire appointed by the Visitor.

5. There is no dispute regarding the nature of the appointment of the petitioner, that is, the contractual one, and therefore, the petitioner was a contractual employee of the Institute. The dispute between the petitioner and the Institute is in respect of the payment of salary, emoluments and wages to him. The petitioner's case is that the Institute is not entitled to recover the amount to the extent of pension being received by the petitioner and he is entitled to full pay and allowances on the post of the Registrar. This contention of the petitioner is seriously disputed by the Institute relying on clause 6 of the contract of appointment mentioned hereinabove.

6. As the statute itself provides an alternative remedy of referring the dispute between a contractual employee and Institute before an Arbitration Panel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Institute to constitute a Panel of Arbitrators for deciding the dispute in respect of the pay and allowances of the petitioner. The Institute is directed to forward a copy of this judgment with a request to visitor forthwith for nominating an Arbitrator by the visitor, and in the meantime, the petitioner and the Institute shall nominate their Arbitrators for adjudicating their dispute in respect of prayer Nos.2 and 3 made in this writ petition. As soon as the visitor nominates the Arbitrator, the Arbitration Panel should decide the dispute expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Till the Arbitration W.A.No.2192 of 2025 9 2026:KER:10609 Panel takes a decision, the Institute may not pay the dues to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of."

Being aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.15409 of 2025 filed the present writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the National Institute of Technology for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that, Section 29 of the National Institute of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007 (the 'Act' for short), is intended to resolve disputes of a contractual or private nature arising between the employees and the Institute, and not to adjudicate policy-based pay fixation matters governed by statutory orders and executive instructions of the Government of India. The issue involved in the present case, being a policy decision of the Government, will not fall under Section 29 of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1], to argue that, when the cause of action and subject matter of the dispute affects third party rights which W.A.No.2192 of 2025 10 2026:KER:10609 requires centralized adjudication, mutual adjudication would not be appropriate and enforceable. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the reference of the matter for adjudication to the arbitration panel by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner would submit that the relation between the appellants and the 1st respondent is based on Ext.P4 contract. Therefore, as per Section 29 of Ext.P14 Act, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration. The Tribunal of arbitration has all the powers to decide the dispute.

7. The 1st respondent was appointed as Registrar of the 1st appellant National Institute of Technology for five years in terms of Ext.P4 contract of service entered into between the parties. As per the contract, his term expires on 10.04.2027. However, due to a difference of opinion, the 1st respondent submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the Board of Governors of the 1st appellant. As per Clause 6 of Ext.P4 contract, the pay and allowance shall be fixed as per the norms of the Government of India, as amended from time to time. W.A.No.2192 of 2025 11

2026:KER:10609

8. As per Section 29 of the Act, 2007, which was amended in the year 2012, any dispute arising out of a contract between an Institute and any of its employees shall, at the request of the employee concerned or at the instance of the Institute be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed by the Institute, one member nominated by the employee, and an umpire appointed by the Visitor. The dispute now existing between the 1st respondent and the appellants is that the authorities of the Institute have deducted the pension from his salary, while his submission against the deduction of the pension component from salary was pending consideration, taking a stand that the contract of service between the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent does not have a provision to deduct the pension component from the salary and also the appellants decided to ratify in its meeting held on 13.03.2025 to deduct the dearness relief too and issued office notes to that effect. The aforesaid decisions cannot be considered as in terms of the policy decisions of the Government, as contended by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on Section 29 of the Act, W.A.No.2192 of 2025 12 2026:KER:10609 2007. For the said reason, the judgment in Vidya Drolia [(2021) 2 SCC 1] does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

9. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.07.2025.

In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court