JUSTIN K. Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to disburse the salary arrears due to the petitioners on account of their promotion as Farm Manager Grade -I and also to the post of Farm Superintendent as has been directed by the University. It is submitted that the petitioners who had already retired from service had been granted promotions as Farm Manager Grade-I as also Farm Superintendent on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment issued by this Court. It is stated that by Ext.P1 judgment, the stand of the University and the Government that the post of Farm Manager and Farm Superintendent had been done away with in implementation of 9th pay revision order had been found against. This Court found that the posts which were sanctioned by ordinances framed by the University as statutory posts and such posts cannot be abolished on the strength of pay revision orders. It is therefore directed that the petitioners would be entitled to due promotions to the statutory posts and for consequential benefits. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the University had passed orders promoting the petitioners as Farm Manager Grade -I as also as Farm Superintendent. The petitioners had joined duty in the promoted post of Farm Superintendent after the order was issued by the University. They had also retired from service. It is stated that the University had taken steps to calculate the pension and pensionary benefits, taking note of the dates on which the petitioners had joined duty as Farm Superintendent pursuant to the orders of promotion. However, the petitioners had submitted representations seeking the benefits of the orders granting retrospective promotions as also seeking the benefits of fixation of pay as also the difference in salary. It is submitted that by Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) No.8117/15, this Court had directed the grant of all monetary benefits to the petitioners in that writ petition. It is submitted that the said petitioner is identically situated as the petitioners herein and he had been granted the entire benefits including the arrears of salary by an order of the University dated 3.8.2016. It is submitted that, it is pursuant to a clarification issued by the Local Fund Audit which is produced as Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.34427 of 2017 that the University has declined to grant the benefits to the petitioners. In Ext.P9, it is stated that the orders of the retrospective promotion have been issued by the University on the basis of the court orders and no retrospective effect can be granted in respect of such prospective promotions.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader, on instructions submits that Rule 23 of Part I K.S.R specifically provides that in case of notional promotions, back arrears of pay and allowances are not admissible. The learned counsel appearing for the University contends that by Ext.P9, the State Audit Department has specifically clarified that back arrears are not admissible to the promotions granted to the petitioners, that is the reason why benefits had not been granted to the petitioners.

(3.) I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the petitioners were entitled for promotions to the post of Farm Manager Grade-I and Farm Superintendent, going by the first statutes and ordinances of the University. The posts were also in existence. However, relying on the provisions of the 9th pay revision order, it was directed that the posts of Farm Manager and Farm Superintendent had to be done away with to bring the posts of the University in conformity with the Secretariat pattern. The due promotions of the petitioners were either withheld or cancelled due to the stand taken by the Government and the University. It is stated that this Court by Ext.P1 judgment had specifically found that the posts were statutory posts and the petitioners were entitled promotion as against the said post with effect from the date of their entitlement. The University had only given effect to Ext.P1 judgment and granted promotions with retrospective effect. It is specifically submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in all other similarly situated cases, the arrears of salary as well as the pay revision arrears for the period in question had already been granted to the persons identically situated as the petitioners.