ORDER

The petitioner is admittedly appointed as a Lecturer with the fifth respondent in the Department of Commerce as against the vacancy and the petitioner has reported to duty on 01.07.2000. The State Government vide its Order dated 23.03.2004 has approved the petitioner's appointment with effect from 06.02.2004. The petitioner's case is that consequent to such order, she is also admitted to the benefit of UGC Pay-scale with effect from 06.02.2004 but not from the date of joining. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to consider her representation dated 19.09.2022 [Annexure-E] and grant the benefit of UGC Pay-scale from the date of joining viz. 01.07.2000.

2. Sri Vijay Kumar V.B., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the following in support of the petitioner's case for grant of UGC pay scale with effect from 01.07.2020:

[a] The similarly circumstanced persons, viz., those who have been appointed as against the vacancies that have arisen because of retirement in different aided institutions, are granted approval effective from the date of joining, but discriminating against the petitioner, without any reason, the approval is made effective from the date other than the date of joining.

[b] This Court in W.P.No.49592/2012 [S-

RES], which is decided on 01.03.2017, has directed the authorities to grant consequential monetary benefits effective from the date of joining while observing that the State Government/its officials, despite the repeated directions for reconsideration, continue to err and that the date of joining would be relevant and not the date of granting approval.

3. Sri Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first to fourth respondents, is heard in the light of these grievances and the reasons assigned. Sri Prince Isac submits that this Court could dispose of the petition directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's case for necessary computation and that the fourth respondent may be granted reasonable time in this regard.

4. It is obvious from this Court's order dated

01.03.2017 that in cases where vacancies have either because of retirement or resignation or death are fulfilled, the State Government has passed orders relaxing the restrictions on appointing the teaching staffs and that where appointments are made as against the vacancies as aforesaid, the consequential benefits must be accorded from the date of such appointment reckoning service from the date of reporting to duty. In fact, it is seen that after this Court's order dated 01.03.2017 in W.P.No.49522/2012 [S-RES], the fourth respondent has issued order dated 22.01.2020 on computation.

5. This Court, in these circumstances, is of the considered view that this petition must be disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the benefits that the petitioner would be entitled to reckoning her services from 01.07.2000 and not from 06.02.2004. The fourth respondent must issue appropriate orders within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the fourth respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall not be admissible for any interest in view of the fact that she has not approached the Court immediately after the order in W.P.No.49592/2012 [S-RES].

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.