M.M. KORAH Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.