While the petitioner was working as Selection Grade Lecturer (Associate Professor) in C.M.S. College, Kottayam, he was promoted as Principal for a period of 4 years with effect from 31-03-2009, as per Ext.P1 order issued by the Manager. The 1st respondent University had approved the appointment by virtue of Ext.P2. On prmomotion to the post of Principal the petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay on a higher scale. But despite Exts.P3 & P4 requests submitted by the Manager and the Principal, the 3rd respondent had not approved salary in the higher grade and not effected fixation of pay. The petitioner was relieved on 31-03-2013 and a junior of the petitioner was given charge as Principal with effect from 01-04-2013. Since pay of the petitioner during the period for which he worked as Principal (Special Grade) was not approved, the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner is not settled and paid so far. According to the petitioner he is expecting payment of DCRG and other terminal benefits, which he is urgently in need to be spend for pursuing his son's study abroad in United States at Cornwell University, Newyork. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in not approving fixation of the pay scale, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking appropriate direction.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent University it is mentioned that the Syndicate of the University had already approved appointment of the petitioner as Principal (Special Grade) with effect from 01-04-2009, as per Clause 16 (1) of Chapter 45 Part B of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute, 1997. As per Clause 16 (2) of the Statute, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is the authority to release salary and the consequential benefits, under the direct payment system.
3. On behalf of the 3rd respondent a statement is filed to the effect that the proposal submitted by the Principal for fixation of pay of the petitioner was initially returned as the same was not signed by the Manager. Later, the proposal was resubmitted rectifying the defect. But it was found that the proposal was not accompanied by 4 copies of supporting documents, which was compulsory. It is further stated that, as per the UGC scheme of pay revision order dated 21-12-1999, the Principal should have Ph.D Degree. The Government have issued an order dated 27-03-2010 insisting upon the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, with effect from 01-01-2006. Since the petitioner do not have Ph.D Degree as prescribed in the UGC Regulations, the proposal was again returned to the Principal seeking clarification as to whether the petitioner holds Ph.D Degree.
4. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is mentioned that, by a communication dated 20-07-2010 the 3rd respondent was informed that the petitioner is not having Ph.D Degree. But the 3rd respondent was informed about a Government order which allowed Special Grade to Principals without Ph.D degree. The petitioner had produced Ext.P7 order of the Government in which it is indicated that the Principal appointed as St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry was allowed the benefit of Special Grade Principal, though the candidate was not possessed of the qualification of Ph.D. According to the petitioner he is entitled to the same benefit as that of Ext.P7.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the UGC scheme has not become applicable because there is no statutory mandate making it obligatory for the Government to follow the same. It is for the State Government and the University to bring necessary amendments in the University Act and the Statute, incorporating the qualifications prescribed under the UGC scheme. As long as such amendments are not introduced the petitioner is entitled to receive salary for the period during which he worked as Principal (Special Grade) on the basis of appointment made by the Manager, which was approved by the University.
6. Learned counsel had placed reliance on a decision of this court in S.N. College V. N. Raveendran (2001 (2) KLJ 713). It is held therein that the qualifications prescribed by the UGC is not incorporated in the Statute and hence the selection conducted by the Management on the basis of provisions contained in the University Act and Status cannot be set aside by the Tribunal. Referring to Sections 57 and 58 of the Kerala University Act, the qualification which should be possessed by the teachers of colleges shall be as prescribed by the Regulations formulated by the Academic Council. As long as the said Regulations are not amended in line with the UGC scheme, it could not be made applicable to the private colleges and the Managements of the private colleges are not bound to follow the same. It is contended that in view of the dictum contained in the decision cited above the petitioner is entitled to get his pay revised at the higher scale applicable to the Principal (Special Grade).
7. Heard; Standing counsel appearing for the University and Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 & 3. The legal position remaining settled through the decision of S.N. College's case (cited supra) is not disputed. Hence the objection raised by the 3rd respondent with respect to the qualification of the petitioner is not sustainable. The approval for fixation of pay at the scale applicable to Principal (Special Grade) cannot be denied to the petitioner in view of the said situation. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be allowed with appropriate direction.
8. Hence this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to issue necessary orders to effect fixation of pay to the petitioner at the higher scale applicable to Principal (Special Grade), for the period from 01-04-2009 till 31-03-2013 and to effect payment of all terminal benefits due to the petitioner including monthly pension and pensionary benefits, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge