Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a senior Lecturer in the College under the management of the fifth respondent, initially had his entry into service as a Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in a provisional vacancy on 12.09.1983. Having continued in the said post up to 03.01.1984, he joined S.N.College, Cherthala, on a regular basis on 04.01.1984. Thus, the petitioner had 3 months and 20 days provisional service before joining on regular basis.
3. Contending that he is eligible for placement under the UGC Scheme by duly taking into account the provisional service rendered by him, the petitioner, while in service, represented to the sixth respondent to forward his case to have the pay revision based on Exhibit P4. As the record reveals, through Exhibit P5, the fifth respondent Manager forwarded it to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, who in turn, through Exhibit P6, recommended the case of the petitioner to the second respondent. Though Exhibit P6 was dated 11.05.2005, according to the petitioner, nothing has been heard thereafter. Eventually in 2008, when the petitioner applied under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the second respondent supplied information to the petitioner through Exhibit P7 dated 30.08.2008. It is evident from the said exhibit that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered primarily on the ground that there is no provision in the UGC Scheme to count the provisional service as qualifying service for placing an employee under the Scheme.
4. The petitioner pleads to the effect that in the light of the rejection in Exhibit P7 by the second respondent, he went on representing to the first respondent to consider his case positively duly taking into account Exhibit P4 Government Order. Having not been successful in his repeated attempts, the petitioner is said to have filed Exhibit P8 representation dated 01.08.2014 before the first respondent reiterating his request. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to the observation of the second respondent in Exhibit P7 that the petitioner had been communicated about the rejection of his claim way back in 2005 itself. He has further contended that, even otherwise, from August 2008 to August 2014, till Exhibit P8 representation was filed, the petitioner remained indolent without assailing Exhibit P7 rejection. Addressing the contention of the petitioner that in the interregnum between 2008 and 2014 he went on representing to the first respondent, the learned Government Pleader would submit that apart from making a bald submission, the petitioner has not pleaced any cogent material before this Court. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader urges this Court that the petitioner's belated claim cannot be entertained, particularly given the fact that the petitioner had already retired from service.
6. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to examine the issue on merits. Since Exhibit P8 representation is admittedly pending before the first respondent, it is appropriate for the authorities to take a decision on the said representation and intimate the petitioner accordingly.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P8 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv