Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Dr.A.Maheswaran Pillai
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF JULY2016/20TH ASHADHA, 1938
W.A.No. 532 of 2008 (D) IN WP(C).20977/2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20977/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.9.07
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC:
1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH& FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER,
HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN THE WPC:
1. DR.A.MAHESWARAN PILLAI, SREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE, NEMAM, TRIVANDRUM.
2. DR.S.VELAPPAN PILLAI, VICE PRINCIPAL,
SREE VIDHYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
NEMAM, TRIVANDRUM.
3. SREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, NEMAM, TRIVANDRUM,
REP.BY ITS, MANAGER AND SECRETARY, SREE VIDHYADHIRAJA VIDYASAMAJAM,
CHETTIKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM - 1.
4. DR.K.RAJEEV,S/O.P.R.KRISHNA PILLAI, PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT,
PRACTICE OF MEDICINES, SREE VIDHYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
NEMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. DR.G.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI, PROFESSOR & HEAD OF DEPARTMENT,
DEPT.OF MATERIA MEDICA,, SREE VIDHYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,,
NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Addl. 6. K.V.SATHYAKUMARI, W/O. DR.K.RAJEEV, NALANDA, ARA 125, VANCHIYUR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 035.
(Impleaded as Additional 6th respondent (R6) as per order dated 30.10.12
in I.A.820/12 in W.A.532/08)
R,R1-2 BY ADV.SRI.K.JAJU BABU
R, BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN
R,R1-2 BY ADV.SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
R,R1-2 BY ADV.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
R,R3 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.532 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)20977/06 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, who were the Principal and Vice Principal of Sree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram with a prayer to quash Exts.P5 and P6 and to declare that they were entitled to continue in service, till they attain 60 years of age. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that in view of the introduction of Direct Payment System in the college with effect from 1.9.2002, the entitlement of the respondents 1 and 2 was to continue in service only till they attain 55 years. However, taking note of the fact that they continued to discharge their duties till they were relieved from service only with effect from 4.8.2006, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition declaring that the petitioners shall be treated to have been in service till they were relieved on 4.8.2006 for all purposes except pension and W.A.532/08 : 2 : pensionary benefits which shall be limited to 55 years of age. It was directed that consequential benefits shall be disbursed within three months. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the respective counsel appearing for the remaining respondents.
3. As is evident from the judgment under appeal, the contention of respondents 1 and 2 was that they were entitled to continue in service till 60 years, consistent with the conditions of service prevailing in the college when the grant in aid scheme was in force prior to the introduction of the Direct Payment System. However, the learned Single Judge declined to grant that prayer and held that their entitlement was to remain in service only till they attained 55 years. This finding of the learned Single Judge is not challenged by the writ petitioners.
4. However, it is a fact that even beyond they attained 55 years, respondents 1 and 2 continued to discharge duties in the college till they were relieved on 4.8.2006. It was taking note of this fact that the W.A.532/08 : 3 : learned Single Judge directed that they shall be treated as continued in service till they were relieved on 4.8.2006 for all purposes, except pension and other pensionary benefits which shall be limited to 55 years. This means that the benefits for the duties discharged by respondents 1 and 2 beyond 55 years is limited to payment of salary. According to us, having regard to the fact that the college has enjoyed the fruits of their labour, respondents 1 and 2 were liable to be paid wages thereof and this precisely is what has been ordered in the judgment under appeal. Such a direction, to our mind does not spell out any illegality justifying to be interfered with.
Appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
SD/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SD/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes