Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, WP(C) NO. 1148 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: K.R.NARAYANAN, AGED 62 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RETD), N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT VIPANCHIKA, B.K. PURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM 682 308. BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4 THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686 101. BY ADV V.VIJULAL SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent, through which, her request for an advance increment as per Clause 10.8 of Ext.P5 Government Order, has been rejected saying that it is not admissible to her.
2. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that Ext.P5 is now totally untenable because, a learned Judge of this Court had delivered Ext.P6
judgment in the case of a similarly situated person, holding
that he is entitled to the advance increment in question.
3. Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam - learned Government
Pleader, in response, submitted that Ext.P5 is irreproachable because, going by the applicable Rules and Circulars, the petitioner cannot get an advance increment for having obtained M.Phil; and that this is more so because, his claim was made more than thirteen years later.
4. Sri.Vijulal - learned counsel for the 4th respondent,
submitted that, the controversy projected herein is between ..3.. the petitioner and the official respondents; and that his client has no comment to make on it.
5. When I consider and evaluate the submissions of
Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam as afore, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the same because, as rightly argued by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Ext.P6 judgment seems to indicate that the stand adopted by the Government in Ext.P5 is not correct. Further, the question whether mere delay, even if there was any, would disentitle the petitioner to claim an advance increment, which has been provided through a valid circular, is an issue that ought to have been considered and specifically stated. As long as Ext.P5 is silent in all these aspects, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with it. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent - Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to Ext.P6, after affording him an opportunity of being heard and of producing any additional
relevant documents; thus culminating in an appropriate order
..4.. and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR ..5.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1148/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUES BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/1996. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE M. PHIL CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
(P) NO. 58/2010/H.EDN, DTD.
27.03.2010. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DT. 22.02.2021 FORWARDED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 6195 OF 2015.