SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46436

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SUJATHA ANIYERI, – Appellant
Versus
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, – Respondent
WP(C)/24668/2022



Advocates:
P.C.SASIDHARAN, SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD – SC

An audit objection cannot negate a valid promotion decision made by a university, especially after the individual has retired.

Headnote:

Retiral - Promotion Validity - None

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner retired from Kannur University and claimed unpaid retiral benefits, asserting her promotion in 2011 was valid despite an audit objection regarding its regularity, which the University had not reviewed until her retirement.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's retiral benefits can be held up due to an audit objection regarding her promotion's validity after her retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid decision by the University Syndicate, which was not reviewed legally, cannot be challenged by an audit objection after a significant delay.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, ordering the University to disburse all eligible benefits within two months.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that even though she retired from the services of the 1st respondent – Kannur University as Assistant Librarian on 31.01.2017, her retiral benefits like Gratuity, Leave Surrender Value, Last Pay and arrears of pay and pension have not been fully paid; and thus prays that the University be directed to do so within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Smt.Jincy Micheal – learned counsel for the petitioner, asserted that her client was granted promotion as Assistant Librarian in the year 2011 under valid orders of the University and therefore, that no cause can be found against her to be denied pensionary and retiral benefits. She, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be directed to be acceded to by the University without any further delay.

3. Sri.I.V.Pramod – learned Standing Counsel for the University, submitted that full disbursement of the petitioner’s retiral and pensionary benefits have been held up only because an objection has been raised by the Audit Department. He added that one of the objections raised is that the petitioner’s promotion, in the year 2011, was irregular and granted without her probation in the earlier post being validly declared. However, to a pointed question from this Court, he conceded that the petitioner’s promotion was given by the University under valid orders and that it has not been reviewed by them until today.

4. When I consider and assess the afore rival contentions, it is without doubt that the petitioner cannot be put to detriment, even assuming that her promotion had not been proper in the year 2011. This is because, same was offered to the petitioner not because of any reason that can be attributed to her, but based on the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University validly. It is now well settled that a decision of the University cannot be upset in Audit, particularly after several years, especially when such decisions are within their competence, under the applicable Statutes and Regulations.

5. As I have already said above, the petitioner was promoted in the year 2011 and I fail to understand how, therefore, any Audit Objection could have been taken against her nearly 11 years after, especially when she has retired from service. As long as the decision to promote her was taken by the Syndicate validly and was not reviewed or set aside through a process of law, no Audit Objection against the same can inure any detriment to her, as has been now attempted.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the University to ensure that the petitioner is granted the full eligible retiral and pensionary benefits dehors any Audit Objection with respect to her promotion in the year 2011 and subject to every other criteria being satisfied, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; failing which, it will carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date on which it became due until it is actually paid.

If the afore amounts are paid by the University within the time frame fixed, the petitioner will have full liberty to approach any other competent Forum on the claim for interest, which I leave open to be pursued by her appropriately.

Sd/-

RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24668/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY NO. AD. A3/5812/08 DT. 01.04.2011.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN (NON UGC)

DT. 01.11.2012.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY , NO. AD.

A3 5812/08 DT. 03.01.2012.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE PASSING OF NET EXAM DT. 05.06.2015 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY NO.

ADMN/ADB3/24561/2018 DT. 17.03.2019.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top