Kerala High Court
Dr.V.Reghu vs University Of Kerala on 28 December, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1695 of 2011 (J)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DR.V.REGHU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTRE
FOR ADULT CONTINUING EDUCATION AND EXTENSION,
(CACEE), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
PMG JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM-695034,
(NOW ON, DEPUTATION AS FACULTY HEAD),
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL, INSTITUTE OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, SRIPERUMBUDUR 602 125, TAMIL NADU.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARYAVATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS,
SECRETARY.
2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
3. THE DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, MINISTRY OF YOUTH,
AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,, SRIPERUMBUDUR
602125, TAMILNADU.
R,R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC,
KERALA UTY.
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,
SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,
SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-01-2017, THE COURT ON 18.1.2017 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1695 of 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF LETTER NO.AD.AII/3/2834/10 DATED 28.12.2010 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF CERTIFICATE AC.A.AII/3/029053/2007 DATED
18.10.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.AD.AII/3/2007 DATED 16.11.2007 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED
14.2.2006 RENDERED IN W.P(C).NO.25669 OF 2004.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20.7.2000
RENDERED IN W.A.NO.180 OF 1992.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 14.6.2005
RENDERED IN W.P(C).NO.3141 OF 2004Y.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AD.G.4480/86 DATED
18.12.1987.
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE UGC LETTER NO.F.22-2/87
(NFE) DATED 7.11.87.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF LETTER NO.17414/B3/98/H.EDN. DATED 4.12.1999
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P10: COPYOF CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2001 ISSUED FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF ORDER NO.AD.D.11.3.26301/98 DATED 21.8.1998.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a): COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.AD.G.4400/86 TO THE POST DATED
-1-1989.
EXHIBIT R2(b): COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF PETITIONER DATED
26.12.1989.
EXHIBIT R2(c): COPY OF MINUTES DATED 15.5.09.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 1695 of 2011
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th January, 2017
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:
"i. call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Exhibit P1.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to send the terms and conditions of deputation in respect of the petitioner in order to enable the 3rd respondent to remit the leave salary and pension contribution.
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to disburse pension, DCRG and all other benefits that the petitioner is entitled on his superannuation, iv. issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) under the 1st respondent University on 19.6.1987. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Director on 26.12.1989. By Exhibit P3, he was granted sanction for WP(C).1695/11 2 deputation as Faculty Head at Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of India, Sriperumpudur, Tamil Nadu. He retired from service while holding the post of Assistant Director in the CACEE and was in full additional charge of Director from 24.1.2007 onwards.
3. The petitioner contends that by Exhibit P4 judgment dated 14.2.2006, this Court had declared that the petitioner is a teacher under the University and would be entitled to continue in service till he completes the age of 60 years. It is further submitted that by Exhibit P5 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, an earlier incumbent in the post of Director had been held to be entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years, since he was a teacher and was further held that he is entitled to all retirement benefits for his work up to the age of 60 years as Director. By Exhibit P6 judgment, the prior incumbent in the post of Director was also held entitled to continue till the age of 60 years and to all consequential benefits, since the post of Director in the CACEE is the post of a teacher. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner who retired from service while holding additional charge of the post WP(C).1695/11 3 of Director of the CACEE would also be entitled to the benefit of the declarations granted by this Court in Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 judgments and would be entitled to retirement benefits on the strength of his service in the CACEE.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University, contending that the CACEE, in which the petitioner was employed is not a department or institution under the University. It is stated that it was established by the Government of India and was operative upto 31.3.1997. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University had resolved to restructure the CACEE as a self supporting centre with academic status on the condition that the expenditure would be limited to within the revenue generated by the CACEE. It is, therefore, contended that the University cannot be mulcted with the liability of paying retirement benefits to employees of the CACEE. It is further stated that Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 judgments only considered the question whether the Director of CACEE is a teacher. It is further stated that the CACEE had been funded by the UGC and once the UGC ceased its financial assistance, the CACEE would continue only as a self financing institution under the University. It is further stated that the WP(C).1695/11 4 petitioner is now employed in the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development and he cannot claim the status of a teacher under Chapter III of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977.
5. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear from Exhibit P4 judgment that this Court had declared that the petitioner is a teacher of the University and is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The nature of work of the petitioner and the terms of his appointment had been considered in detail by this Court while issuing Exhibit P4 judgment. Thereafter, in the case of an earlier incumbent in the post of Director, Exhibit P5 judgment had been issued by a Division Bench of this Court wherein also it was found that the petitioner was a teacher of the University and was entitled to all retirement benefits for his work upto the age of 60 years as Director. Later, in Exhibit P6 judgment also this Court held that the post of Director in the CACEE is a teaching post and that the employees will be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that the question addressed in Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 WP(C).1695/11 5 judgments is only whether the incumbents in the posts of Director and Assistant Director in CACEE are teachers. It is contended that the question whether the employees of the Centre are entitled to pension was never considered by this Court. It is further submitted that the specific contention of the University that the CACEE had been retained only as a self financing body and employees of the same would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits from the University's fund had not been considered by this Court.
7. Exhibit P4 is a judgment issued in the petitioner's case. The nature of his appointment and his eligibility to continue till the age of 60 years as a teacher of the University was the specific case examined in the said judgment. After considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner as well as the detailed pleadings and submissions of the University also, this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a teacher under the University. The declaration contained in Exhibit P4 reads as follows:
"10. In the result this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P21 and P24 are quashed. There shall be a declaration that the petitioner is a teacher of the University and is entitled to continue in service upto WP(C).1695/11 6 the age of 60 years which is the superannuation age of such categories of members of the University.
8. In Exhibit P5 also a Division Bench of this Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in P.S.Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University [AIR 1997 SC 3433], held that the petitioner was holding the post of teacher while he was working as Director in the CACEE. It was further held that he would be entitled to all retirement benefits for his work upto the age of 60 years. In the above view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University to the effect that the petitioner in Exhibit P5 judgment who had earlier worked as Reader in a private college under the University had been considered only on account of his earlier appointment as such cannot be countenanced. I am of the opinion that Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 judgments would clearly show that the petitioner, who had been declared to be a teacher under the University, would clearly be entitled to the benefits of pension and other pensionary benefits on account of his service as Assistant Director in the CACEE.
WP(C).1695/11 7
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to all retirement benefits on account of his service in the CACEE. The 1st respondent University shall take steps to calculate and disburse all pensionary benefits due to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs