DR.C.SREEKUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 19TH POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 2061 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 35121/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF APPELLANT: KERALA DR.C.SREEKUMAR AGED 66 YEARS SOCIAL INVESTIGATOR SENIOR GRADE (RETD.), COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY DIVISION, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011, RESIDING AT SREESYLAM, GANDHI PARK JUNCTION, PARASSALA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502 BY ADV S.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695001 THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011 DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011 THE CONTROLLER OF FINANCE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011 BY ADV ATHUL SHAJI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.2055/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 2055 OF 2023 & WA NO. 2061 OF 2023 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of January, 2024 ANU SIVARAMAN, J Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as well. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Writ Appeals have been filed against Ext.P20 order declining the request made by the appellant for payment of salary due to the academic staff with the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the appellant had acquired a Ph.D qualification in the year 2010 while working a Social Investigator, Senior Grade in community Oncology Division under the 2nd respondent. Relying on Ext.P2 proceedings, he had raised a claim that he is entitled to upgradation to academic post. However, the claim had been rejected. The appellant had approached this Court filing WP© No.17913/2018 and had continued in service on the basis of interim order order passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, he had sought the benefits of having worked till he attained the age of 62 years and the scale of pay in an academic post. This Court, by Ext.P18 judgment had directed the consideration of the claim. By Ext.P20 order dated WA NO. 2055 OF 2023 & WA NO. 2061 OF 2023 4

26.10.2018, the claim for scale of pay in the academic post had been rejected on the ground that Ext.P2 stood withdrawn by Ext.P9 and that there was no provision for any upgradation of the post on acquisition of Ph.D. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had specifically raised a contention that other officers who were similarly situated had been granted the benefit of upgradation of the post held by them as academic post on acquisition of Ph.D. It is submitted that Dr.Divya Raj and Dr.Hariharan were two of such cases.

2. The learned Government Pleader points out that the 2nd respondent had filed a counter affidavit specifically stating that the case of Dr.Divya Raj and Dr.Hariharan were not equivalent to the case of the petitioner and that those officers had been specifically appointed in an existing academic post on acquisition of the required qualification. In the instant case, it is submitted that the appellant was continuing in a non-academic post and there was no academic post available to accommodate him. Further, it is stated that in the light of Ext.P9, the appellant had no claim for upgradation of the post already held by him. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there are other benefits due for which the appellant had been making requests before the respondent, which have not been released. WA NO. 2055 OF 2023 & WA NO. 2061 OF 2023 5

3. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned Single Judge had considered the contentions advanced and had come to the conclusion that with the cancellation of Ext.P2 proceedings by Ext.P9, the appellant had no claim for upgradation of the non-academic post held by him on acquisition of Ph.D qualification. The contention that two other officers had been granted the same benefits also does not appear to be correct since it is a specific contention of the respondents that the said officers had been appointed in existing academic post on acquisition of required qualification. With regard to the further claims raised, the learned Single judge has specifically directed that if the appellant has any further claims on the basis of a continuance in service on the strength of the interim order as a non-academic staff, it is for the appellant to raise those contentions before the 2nd respondent, which will be considered in accordance with law.

4. In the above view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment in this intra-court appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, if the appellant makes a consolidated representation before the respondents 2 & 3 pointing out the amounts if any due on account of his continuance in service as non- WA NO. 2055 OF 2023 & WA NO. 2061 OF 2023 6 academic staff until 27.05.2018, the same shall be taken up, considered and appropriate orders passed thereon after getting orders from the 1st respondent if necessary. These Writ Appeals are ordered accordingly. sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE sd/- C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE Nsd