The petitioners, a Project Assistant and a Field Assistant respectively, were appointed in the respondent University on 8/7/2011, in compliance with a judgment dated 10/3/2013 in W.P. (C)25601/07. At the time of the petitioners' entry into service, the respondent University obtained from them Exts.P5 and P6 undertakings waiving their right to claim backwages and other service benefits. Later, in course of time, the petitioners submitted Ext.P8 representation claiming backwages. Complaining of its non- consideration, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that through Ext.P7 the syndicate of the University on 11/12 October, 1999 took a decision to absorb the petitioners into service, their being the erstwhile staff of IIRD. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, notwithstanding Exts.P5 and P6 undertakings, the petitioners should be given all service benefits from 11/10/1999 W.P.(C)No.30515 OF 2014 : 2 :
when the respondent University took a decision to absorb the petitioners into the service, as has been evident from Ext.P7. In justification of this claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that Exts.P5 and P6 were obtained from the petitioners respectively much against their will, at the time of their initial appointment in 2011.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University on the other hand has submitted that though a tentative decision was taken through Ext.P7 in October 1999, the petitioners were actually appointed only on 5.9.2011 as is evident from Ext.P3. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners may have been entitled to all the benefits from 5.9.2011 when they were actually appointed but not from October 2009 when a tentative decision was taken through Ext.P7 to absorb the petitioners. In other words, the learned Standing Counsel contends that no benefit could be given to a person for the period he had not been borne in the cadre at all.
4. Be that as it may, since Ext.P8 representation of the petitioners is pending consideration for some time before the respondent University, it will suffice, if a direction is given for its disposal.
W.P.(C)No.30515 OF 2014 : 3 :
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the University, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to consider petitioner's Ext.P8 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE