Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 610 (KER)

Principal And Controlling Officer v. Reghu. D

2026-05-22

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT Muralee Krishna, J. Respondents 3, 5 and 6 in W.P.(C)No.23504 of 2016 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. For convenience, the parties and documents are referred to in this judgment in their status as they were in the writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners were appointed as Tutors on 11.12.2002 and on 19.09.2003, respectively, in the Department of Pathology and Practice of Medicine, in Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College, Nemom. As per Ext.P1 order dated 16.04.2010, petitioners' appointments were approved by the University with effect from the dates of their appointment, and they are receiving salary also. Later, the Government established Kerala University of Health Sciences, and therefore, the college is now affiliated to the 2 nd respondent. The 5 th respondent issued G.O (MS) No. 203/2006/H & FWD dated 22.09.2006, fixing the staff pattern consisting of 31 teaching staff and 25 non-teaching staff. Then the government issued a revised staff pattern as per G.O (MS) No.346/2008/H & FWD dated 09.07.2008, prescribing service conditions and mode of promotion, etc. The 1 st respondent promoted the petitioners as Reader and Lecturer respectively as per Ext.P5 order dated 27.03.2010 in terms of staff pattern approved by the Government as well as the Special Rules/Central Homoeopathic Rules which govern the field. When the petitioners proposal for promotion was deliberately delayed from forwarding to the University for approval, they were constrained to file W.P.(C) No.3257 of 2013 and the same stands disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.08.2013 directing the Manager to forward the proposal to the controlling officer and the controlling officer to forward the same to the University. In the meanwhile, this Court in W.P.(C)No. 18669 of 2006 and connected cases while setting aside all the Government Orders impugned in the writ petitions which governs the service conditions of the petitioners and other staff directed the government as agreed upon by the parties that the staff pattern of Central Council of Homeopathy for determining the staff fixation in the Medical College in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. This Court also issued consequential directions. This Court also issued consequential directions. Even though the writ appeals filed against the said judgment were disposed of with some clarifications, which did not materially alter Ext.P8 judgment dated 13.03.2015 in W.P.(C)No.18669 of 2006, it is learnt that the Government has not taken any steps to pass orders implementing CCH norms to govern the staff pattern and other service conditions of teachers and other employees. It is further understood that the Government is taking steps to file an SLP before the Apex Court as well. Since the orders governing the service conditions are quashed and fresh orders are yet to be passed, and getting inordinately delayed, the petitioners are deprived of their salary and other service benefits based on the earlier government orders with periodical revision of salary, increment, promotion and other service benefits, etc. It is now trite in law that when the laws regulating the service conditions of a class of employees are set aside, intending to introduce a new one, all the benefits arising out of the earlier laws should continue till the new laws are regulated. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to delay the service benefits of the petitioners, including revision of pay, promotion, etc. With these pleadings, the petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.23504 of 2016, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents no. 3 to 6 to give all service benefits including payment of salary and other allowances in the revised scale of pay such as leave surrender, pay revision arrears of 2005, 2011 and 2016 within the time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents no. 3 to 6 to give all service benefits including promotion to the petitioners which are applicable to their counterparts in Government Homeopathy colleges in the State”. 3. In the writ petition, the 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 04.05.2017 opposing the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Thereafter, the 6 th respondent filed a statement dated 29.11.2017 opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and producing therewith Annexure R6(a) document. 3. In the writ petition, the 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 04.05.2017 opposing the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Thereafter, the 6 th respondent filed a statement dated 29.11.2017 opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and producing therewith Annexure R6(a) document. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2019 disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioners would be entitled for all benefits arising from Annexure R2(a) order. The 6 th respondent in the writ petition was directed to ensure that the benefits for which the petitioners are entitled to on the strength of Annexure R2(a) order, including the arrears that have accrued till that date, are disposed of to them within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. It was further made clear that the dispute, if any, with regard to the date of appointment of the 2 nd petitioner will be open to challenge in appropriate proceedings. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present writ appeal, however, with a delay of 326 days. 4. On 19.06.2020, as per the order in C.M.Appln No.1 of 2020, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and posted the appeal for admission along with connected cases. 5. On 23.01.2023 when this writ appeal along with connected matters came up for consideration this Court noted the order dated 18.11.2020 in S.L.P.(C) No.10603 of 2020 arising out of the interim order dated 19.06.2020 in W.A. No.687 of 2020 granting interim stay of the impugned interim order passed in that writ appeal and therefore delinked the writ petitions and review petition considered along with this writ appeal and other connected writ appeals and directed the Registry to list the writ petitions and review petition before the learned Single Judge. 6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 - writ petitioners. 7. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has already dismissed the connected writ appeals on merits as per the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in W.A.No.2442 of 2025 . 6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 - writ petitioners. 7. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has already dismissed the connected writ appeals on merits as per the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in W.A.No.2442 of 2025 . The learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue involved in this writ appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 8. In the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in W.A.No. 2442 of 2025 and connected matters, this Court has already decided the rival contentions of the parties herein and dismissed those writ appeals. Paragraphs 8 to 10 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “8. We have appreciated the rival arguments addressed at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Though during the course of arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader pointed out various judgments claiming them as in favour of the contentions of the appellants, to argue that Ext.P5 Government Order is void since it was passed without the concurrence of the Finance Department, we notice that those judgments are found as not applicable to the facts of the instant case in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P4 judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.03.2015 in W.P.(C)No.18669 of 2006 and connected matters attained finality by the dismissal of the writ appeal and the Special Leave to appeal filed by the State and its officials against those judgments. It is in pursuance of the direction in Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P5 order dated 24.09.2016 has been passed by the Government. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Governor of the State. As held by the learned Single Judge, after the passing of the said order, if the Government was of the view that the said order is one that ought not have been passed, then the remedy available to the appellants was to take steps to cancel that order in accordance with law, if possible. As held by the learned Single Judge, after the passing of the said order, if the Government was of the view that the said order is one that ought not have been passed, then the remedy available to the appellants was to take steps to cancel that order in accordance with law, if possible. But no such steps have been taken by the Government till date, and instead has taken a strange stand in the writ petitions that Ext.P5 order passed by the Government is bad or void in view of Rule 10(1) and Rule 26 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala. 10. When Ext.P4 judgment has attained finality, it is the duty of the Government to implement the directions in that judgment. But instead of doing the same, even after passing Ext.P5 order with a view to implement the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and the approval of the proposal for appointment of 43 teaching staff by Ext.P6 order of the university, the Government is now taking a strange contention that Ext.P5 is a void order, which has no legs to stand. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, these writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. In the result, these writ appeals stand dismissed”. 9. As noted above, the point to be decided in the present writ appeal is the one already decided by this Court in the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in W.A.No.2442 of 2025 and connected matters as extracted above. Therefore, we find that the appellants have not made out any sufficient ground to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is suffering from any impropriety or illegality which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.