You can file a writ petition before HC for speedy remedy and appropriate directions
How to get my salary
The group of students of Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) were on strike from 12/01/2017 onwards, alleging that seven teaching staff ( including Sri. Niyas Thayyil) working on contract basis was not qualified. The agitating students did not allow these teachers from entering the college building. The seven faculties were allowed to enter the college from 07/02/2017 as per the interim order of the Honorable High Court and the decision of the Parent Teacher Association PTA meeting dated 07/02/2017 and they have signed the attendance register and punched in the biometric punching from that date onwards. Their salary for the period from 07/02/2017 to 28/02/2017 was disbursed as there was no direction to withhold the salary. Their salary for the period 01/03/2017 to 22/05/2017 (i.e. Their relieving date) has not been disbursed since decision on the matter by the Syndicate was pending. The matter of releasing the salary of the contract staff including the 7 teachers, who were not allowed to enter the college campus by the striking students, for the period from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017, was placed before the Syndicate for consideration. The Syndicate meeting held on 06.05.2017, had resolved to constitute a committee. The report of the subcommittee was placed before the Syndicate and the meeting resolved to release the salary of contract teachers for the period from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. A complaint was lodged by a student of IET, against the releasing of salary of contract teachers for the period from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017 stating that this would be unnecessary wastage of the fee paid by the students. The Vice Chancellor, on 04.11.2017 ordered to refer back the decision of the Syndicate held on 20.09.2017 regarding releasing of the salary of the contract staff, along with the complaint received. The Syndicate at its meeting held on 07.12.2017 resolved to approve the question of releasing the salary of the contract teachers of IET for the period, 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017 as per rules. As the rules regarding the engagement, service and salary of contract staff of IET is being dealt with DSFC. IET sought orders on seeking specific remarks of the Directorate of Self Financing Courses (DSFC) on the matter, DSFC remarked that the abstention period of the contract staff may be treated as ‘refraining from duty' for which the incumbents are not eligible for consolidated remuneration or other benefits as per the agreement executed. This decision was implemented vide U.O.No.1055/2018/Admn dated 23.01.2018. During the period from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017, Shri. Niyas Thayyil attended duty on 16.01.2017 and hence the salary for that date was disbursed.
Asked 6 years ago in Labour
11 Answers
I already filled a case highcourtkerala WP(c)18625/2017 But university allegating me as a "abstention" How to get salary
Asked 6 years ago
Complainant Niyas thayyil Thayyil House-3 Muthur, Tirur- 676101 Mobile No: [deleted] E mail: [deleted] it has been resolved to approve the question of releasing the salary of the contract teachers of IET for the period, 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017 as per rules. IET sought orders on seeking specific remarks of the DSFC as the rules regarding the engagement, service and salary of contract staff of IET is being dealt with by the DSFC. 1. The seven faculty members who were alleged to be unqualified by the striking students, could not mark their attendance and biometric punching as they were not allowed to enter the college because of the striking students, for the period from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. 2. As per the letter from HoDs, other contract staff members were present in the campus but were not able to punch and mark attendance due to student' s strike. As per the records, a few other faculties on contract had abstained from their duty for the above mentioned period stating that they would enter only if the seven staff were permitted to enter the college. DSFC has remarked that the abstention period of the contract staff may be treated as ‘refraining from duty' for which the incumbents are not eligible for consolidated remuneration or other benefits as per the agreement executed Please clarify some points 1) First paragraph in reference clearly shows that students have blocked me from 12.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. So how can my blocking periods can come under the "Refraining of duty"? 2) How I attended duty on 16.01.2017 in the college? 3) What is the benefit that I got for coming to college regularly and abstaining from my duty? 4) What do you mean by ‘Refraining from duty’?
Asked 6 years ago
The matter of releasing the salary (for the period March to May 2017) The Syndicate meeting held on 07.12.2017 resolved to approve the question of releasing the salary for the month from March to May 2017 of the seven teachers including Shri. Niyas Thayyil as per rules. This decision was implemented vide U.O.No.498/2018/Admn dated 11.01.2018. As the abstention period of the contract staff is treated as ‘refraining from duty' for which the incumbents are not eligible for consolidated remuneration or other benefits as per the agreement executed. Therefore, the salary for the month from March to May 2017 was not disbursed. it has been resolved to approve the question of releasing the salary of the contract teachers of IET for the period, March to May 2017 this decision of the Syndicate has been modified as "Approved as per rules”. DSFC has remarked that as per the Guidelines on refraining from duty, the teaching staff members abstaining from duty are not eligible for salary or any other benefits during the said period. Please clarify some points 5) The reference mentions the PTA decision, it clearly states that I have to be present, sign and do the biometric Punching from 08.02.2017 onwards. So how do I come under the act of ‘Refraining of duty’? 6) Why not following rules or Guidelines as per read as (5)?
Asked 6 years ago
From the Minutes of Syndicate University of Calicut above attached, item No: 2017.1327. It can be clearly understood that, there was a group of staff who were blocked by students and another group of staffs who insisted that they will only teach until the Niyas thayyil and other teachers is permitted to enter the college. I would like to know in which group I belong
Asked 6 years ago
1) it does not amount to refraining from duty as you were blocked by students from attending college
2) report of sub committee is clear and salary of contract staff should be released
3) you don’t gain any benefit from coming to college and abstaining from duty
4)refraining from duty would be teachers deliberately not coming to college
You have not refrained from duty
2) you were prevented by students from entering college building
You belong to group who were prevented from attending college
You should file writ petition before Supreme Court on ground that you were restrained by students and lack of management tactics to control strike by students and why would teachers suffers for their fault.
You have to consult a local lawyer, discuss full facts and take steps.
You have narrated what has happened chronologically in your post, whereas you have not posted your query, you may revert with the4 query you intend to post here.
You have mentioned that you have already filed a writ petition in this regard before the Kerala high court, then why do you bother about the reply whatever had been given by the university.
Your abstension was not intentional, you were willing to work whereas you were prevented from entering into the working premises by the agitating mob, this defence will be sufficient for you to protect your interests.
1. No. It can be considered as that you were forcibly prevented from entering into the working premises by agitating students, hence it is not your fault because you were always willing to work.
2. You know that, how can you ask this question when you done it.
3. Your question is not understood. Since your case is there before high court, you dont involve in any such controversy.
4. It means voluntarily absenting from duty.
It is wrong to say that you have refrained from attending duty, actually you were not allowed to enter inside the college premises.
Your defence is that you were always willing to work and you never intended to refrain from attending duty as alleged by the authorities concerned.
The staff have not been allowed to work by the agitating students, hence you were not able to enter inside.
You belong to your own group who have been prevented from entering into the campus
this forcible prevention cannot be termed as anact of refraining yourself from attending your duty.