ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS. versus MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.

ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS. versus MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.

The appellants were appointed against substantive posts through regular selection process; their appointments were not contractual or temporary, and University statutes applied. Therefore, there was no justification to restrict pay revision benefits. The appellants are entitled to pay revision as per government orders.

Parties
Appellants: Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors.; Respondents: Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Final Appeal From Kerala High Court Division Bench Judgment and Review; Single Judge Allowed Writ, Division Bench Reversed, Review Dismissed, Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment and orders under appeal set aside; order of Single Judge restored.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Teachers, Permanency Vs. Temporariness of Posts, Pay Revision, Application of University Statutes to Self Financing Institution
Service Law Appointment of Teachers Permanency Vs. Temporariness of Posts Pay Revision Application of University Statutes to Self Financing Institution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors.

Appellants

Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Final Appeal From Kerala High Court Division Bench Judgment and Review; Single Judge Allowed Writ, Division Bench Reversed, Review Dismissed, Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointments of appellants as teachers were temporary or against substantive posts
  2. 2 Whether Mahatma Gandhi University statutes applied to teachers of Self Financing Institution
  3. 3 Whether refusal of pay revision to appellants based on 'temporary' status was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were appointed against substantive posts through regular selection process; their appointments were not contractual or temporary, and University statutes applied. Therefore, there was no justification to restrict pay revision benefits. The appellants are entitled to pay revision as per government orders.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment and orders under appeal set aside; order of Single Judge restored.

Orders

  • Order dated 08.01.2014 in O.P.(Civil) No.3818 of 2003 restored
  • No costs awarded