The petitioners are working as Lecturers (re-designated as Assistant Professor) in NSS College, Ottappalam. They have approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that they are entitled for salary from the date of joining on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders and Exts.P3 and P4 approval orders granted by the Calicut University. On 10/8/2011 this Court passed the following order:- “5. In the light of the legal position entered by this Court in various cases, namely, Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanassery [1998 (2) KLT 144] and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007 (3) KLT 355] prior concurrence of the Government is not necessary. Evidently, no objections are pending before the University about the approval granted. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent-Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur to disburse the admissible salary to the petitioners along with arrears on production of the bills by the Principal within one month. This will be subject to further orders to be passed in the Writ Petition.”
2. The issue raised in this Writ Petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Jinsu Varghese (Dr.) and Another v. Manager & Others [2011(2)KHC 332], in which this Court held that:-
“11.The contention raised in paragraph 4 in the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.19082 of 2010 is not sustainable in view of the Division Bench decision in Manager, Pazhassiraja College v. University of Calicut.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit at all in the contentions put forward by the Government and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. In spite of binding decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Court, the Government and the Officials are not following the same and they are bent upon taking the very same contentions in all the cases and denying salary to the teachers who are legitimately entitled to receive salary for the work done by them. I am of the view that this stand taken by the respondents is absolutely illegal and it amounts to manifestation of scant respect to the judgments and orders passed by the High Court. I hope similar untenable stand would not be taken by the respondents. I am of the view that it is the duty of the Government Pleaders to advise the persons concerned not to venture to do so. The duty of the Government Pleaders is not to state everything what the officers say. The Government Pleaders have a duty to advise the officers and to see that correct contentions are taken in the counter- affidavits. Government orders which were quashed should not be allowed to be projected again and again in the counter affidavits in similar cases which arises in future.”
3. In the light of the dictum laid down in the judgment of this Court in Jinsu Varghese's case (Supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of making the interim order absolute. It is also declared that the petitioners are entitled to salary from the date of joining on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders as duly approved by the University in Exts.P3 and P4 orders.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj