MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Vs. N.C. SANTHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The University isin appeal againstthe judgment of the learned Single Judge. The 1 st respondent was the petitioner in the writ petition, who claimed regular scale of pay in the post of Regional Director ofRegional Centre,Edappally of theSchoolof Technology and Applied Sciences [for short"STAS"], undertheMahatma Gandhi University [for brevity "University"]. The appointment was on contract, after retirement of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, who continued in the said postwhile shewas receiving pension by virtue of her earlier employment in an aided college affiliated to the University of Kerala. It is also an admitted fact that she retired as Principal fromoneofthe affiliated Colleges. Theclaim necessarilywas that two otherRegional Directors appointed toother RegionalCentreswere granted regular scalesof pay while the 1 st respondent was initially paid a consolidated sum of Rs.8,000/-, which was increased to Rs.12,000/- and later to Rs.15,000/-.

(2.) The1st respondent claimed parity of remunerationwith theothertwo Regional Directors appointed to the otherRegional Centres in regular scales of pay. The University took a stand before the learnedSingleJudge thatthe1st respondent-writ petitioner was appointed after retirement, while the two other Regional Directors were already working in the University on a regular scale of pay and they were entitled to protection of pay when they were selected for occupying the post ofRegional Directors. The learned Single Judge found that the claim of the writ petitioner is based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The University having not set forth any case that the work discharged by the writ petitioner was different from thework attached to the other Regional Centres, there wasfound an arbitrary discrimination insofar asfixing a consolidated remuneration for the petitioner alone. The University then submitted that if the pay of the writ petitioner is fixed at parwithother Regional Directors, pensionary benefits would have to be set off, which, however, the learned Single Judge refused to consider on the ground that the writ petition itself was on denial of parity. The question as to set off of pension was, however, left open and it was directed that the University could adopt a course in accordance with law.

(3.) ThelearnedStanding Counsel for the University Sri.Surin George Ipe would assert that there can be no claim for parity in pay especially since the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was a person appointed after retirement, that too on contract basis. The 1 st respondent had also executed agreements as produced at Exhibits P7 andP8, by which sheagreed to the remuneration of Rs.15,000/- on a monthly consolidated basis. Theperiod of appointmentwas for one year, which stood extended subsequently, is the contention. The 1st respondent was appointed in 2005 and continued upto 2009. The agreement was entered into, in 2009, only on account of a challenge against the selection conducted to the post of Regional Directors, which was eventually negatived as per Exhibit P13 judgment in W.P.(C) No.6880 of 2005. It is submitted, that in the writ petitionthere was a stay insofar as finalizing the terms of appointment for reason of which alone the agreement was executed far later in 2009, after the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel also specifically pointed to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit to buttress their contention that the impugned judgment is not sustainable.