B.KARUNAKARAN Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the writ petition is aggrieved by the non compliance of the directions in Annexure I judgment. It is pointed out that as per the judgment, various directions have been issued by this Court to quantify the benefits allowable to the petitioner as per Ext.P4 and disburse the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 are respectively the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University of Calicut. To recapitulate the history of the litigation, the petitioner's case for various reliefs, was initially considered by this Court in O.P.No.24633/1998 wherein he complained about the denial of appointment as Professor of Sanskrit in spite of his selection. This Court, by Annexure R1(a) judgment (produced along with the counter affidavit dated 19.7.2012) directed the Chancellor of the University to consider the question as to what relief the petitioner is entitled for illegally denying him the benefit of selection made by a properly constituted selection committee headed by the Vice Chancellor himself and the consequential notional appointment.

(3.) AFTER the filing of the Contempt Case, various amounts have been paid to the petitioner, as is clear from the affidavits of the University. At the time of final hearing, the controversy has narrowed down to one point, viz. whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of benefits like salary other than pensionary benefits. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the Chancellor which was directed to be implemented by Annexure I judgment, the petitioner is entitled for grant of salary and allowances, but the learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that since notional appointment alone was granted, he was entitled only for the pensionary benefits which have been sanctioned and disbursed fully.