DR.A.AUGUSTIN Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a retired employee was before this Court, even prior to the retirement ie., in the year 2002, claiming that his pay has been fixed in such a manner that he draws the very same pay as his junior. Though the petitioner initially claimed parity of pay against respondents 4 to 8, on hearing, since all the parties are now retired, the learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically pointed out the case of Dr.N. Rema Bhai, the 4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent is claimed to be a junior of the petitioner, having been appointed to the University on 30.03.1981, while the petitioner was appointed on 26.12.1978. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's case is covered by Ext.P50 judgment and he is entitled to step -up of pay to that drawn by 4th respondent .

(2.) None appeared for the University, when the matter was called for hearing. The petitioner, the 4th respondent and the Government, were represented through Counsel. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has chosen to file a reply dated 08.02.2016 to the counter affidavit of the University dated 27.06.2002; without a petition to accept the same or to condone the long delay occassioned.

(3.) Be that as it may, the petitioner's case has to be examined as against the 4th respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in 26.12.1978. The 4th respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor on 06.04.1981. But however the 4th respondent had entered service in the Vellanikkara College of Agriculture, affiliated to the Kerala University. The Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) was formed on 22.04.1971. As per SRO 264/1972 the service of Instructor/Junior Assistant Professor was to be reckoned for up -gradation as Associate Professor. The 4th respondent was hence granted up -gradation as Associate Professor w.e.f. 26.05.1986 by Ext.P4 dated 16.06.1986. It is to be noticed that the up -gradation as per Ext.P2 is considered only on application by the concerned faculty member and on an assessment of the performance of the faculty member on broad parameters laid down in Ext.P2. The petitioner does not have a case that the petitioner applied for such an up -gradation or had challenged the up -gradation of 4th respondent .