Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Deputy Director Of Collegiate Education – Appellant
Versus
Leni V – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition filed to challenge prior judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and legal provisions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. factual background of the respondent's employment and promotions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. application of ugc guidelines on salary increments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judgment reviewed due to non-consideration of key regulations. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A. No.1689 of 2018, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.
2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the review petitioners/appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent University of Kerala.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that at the time of hearing the writ appeal, Appendix I of Ext.P1 G.O. (P) No.58/2010 /H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010 was not before this Court, since the 1st respondent did not produce it along with Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The review petitioners have now produced Appendix I of Ext.P1
The court allows review of its previous judgment due to the non-production of crucial evidence and documents, which misled the court regarding the salary fixation and entitlement to advance increment....
the relief claimed in the petition, even based on the judgment in the case of Dr B.M. Gupta, is not tenable in law as there is gross delay in approaching the Court even if presuming it to be similar ....
UGC Regulations on appointment of teachers prevail over conflicting State Government Orders, mandating adherence to UGC standards for designation and pay fixation post-tenure.
(1) A clarification must not have effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. (2) An explanation/clarification may not expand or al....
Rule 28(A) of Part I KSR would apply only in cases where the anomaly arises out of fixation of pay pursuant to a pay revision order and that it does not apply to an anomaly arising as a result of tim....
Advance increments to stenographers for shorthand speed are 'pay for all purposes', including annual increments, till promotion/ACP/MACP; department's exclusion for increment calculation unjustified ....
Judicial ruling affirms equal pay adjustment rights for senior employees despite increment anomalies resulting from different departmental exam timings.
Timely submission of academic qualifications and publications is essential for faculty promotions under UGC regulations; delays in challenges to university decisions can invalidate claims.
Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002, does not apply when the pay anomaly is not a direct result of its application, particularly when the higher pay of juniors is due to prior ad ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
