I.N.SREEKUMAR Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is submitted at the Bar that the first petitioner has got service under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and the second petitioner is continuing in the fourth respondent Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. The second petitioner was appointed in 1995 and he is continuing as temporary in the fourth respondent-University.

(2.) THEREFORE , in my view, the Registrar of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University should have obtained sanction from the Government and allowed the second petitioner to continue in a regular post. The second petitioner should be regularised with effect from 23.1.2003, from which date he is continuously working. Be that as it may, his past service has also to be considered for the purpose of pension and other benefits.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent University Sri.Millu Dandapani submits that for the default of the first respondent University, the fourth respondent University should not be saddled with the monetary liability. But, in my considered view, either from the first respondent University or from the fourth respondent University, the source of finance is same. Therefore, there should not be a dispute between the Universities as to which University should pay monetary benefits to the second petitioner, since the source of income is the same, i.e., the State Government. The entire process as aforesaid shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.