IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 4837 of 2002(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.V.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KUNHAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, SUB REGISTRAR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR), SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, OF KERALA, REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRARION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 8537/2002 IN O.P. NO. 4837/2002-A DISMISSED 08/04/2008. SD/- V. GIRI, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: EXTRACT OF THE ORDER NO. E1-330/60/95 (2) DTD. 16/11/95 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (P). NO. 600/93/FIN. DTD. 25/09/1993 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT (TRUE EXTRACT). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KANNUR DTD. 25/06/1996. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E1-23642/96 DTD. 07/06/96 SENT BY THE R.3. TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KANNUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 31/10/98. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/01/1999 SENT BY THE R.3. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1459/E1/99/LD DTD. 22/05/1999 SENT BY THE R.2. TO THE R.3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- O.P.No.4837 of 2002 ------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Junior Superintendent in the Registration Department, was appointed as Sub Registrar by Ext.P1 order dated 16.11.1995. According to the petitioner, as per the Special Rules for the Kerala Registration Subordinate Service, the posts of Junior Superintendent and Sub Registrar are in the same time scale. But the senior most of the Junior Superintendent was to be appointed as the Sub Registrar. Accordingly, the petitioner and another person were appointed as Sub Registrars. The petitioner has a contention that though the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent and Sub Registrar, at the time of Ext.P1, was the same, the posts were not treated as interchangeable. The nature of duties and responsibilities of a Sub Registrar was different from that of a Junior Superintendent. The appointment had all the attributes of promotion within the meaning of Rule 2(11) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. It is also contended that the posts of Junior Superintendent and Sub Registrar O.P.NO.4837/02 :: 2 :: were not interchangeable as such. On the said premise, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of G.O.(P)No.600/93/Fin dated 25.9.1993. Paragraph 24 of the said Government Order reads as follows: “Where promotion post happens to have the scale of pay of the feeder category post, one advance increment will be granted to the incumbents appointed by promotion in posts carrying the scale of pay of feeder category posts.” 2. According to the petitioner, the post of Sub Registrar ought to be considered as a promotion post of Junior Superintendent. On the date of Ext.P1, both the posts carried the same time scale and if that be the position, on appointment as Sub Registrar as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was entitled to get one advance increment. This claim ultimately has been rejected under Ext.P7 since, according to the Government, the post of Junior Superintendent is not treated as a feeder category to the post of Sub Registrar as per the Special Rules for the Kerala Registration Subordinate Service. Further, as per Government Order dated 20.5.1996, the scale of pay Sub Registrar stood revised to O.P.NO.4837/02 :: 3 :: Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.6.1996 and therefore, the issue of grant of one advance increment ceased to have any significance. This has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Nandakumar. 4. It may be difficult to accept the contention that the post of Junior Superintendent should be treated as the feeder category to the post of Sub Registrar merely on account of the fact that the said two posts were in the same time scale on the date of Ext.P1. In my view, where the posts are borne in a service, the question as to whether one post should be treated as a promotion post will have to be decided as per the Special Rules. But, it is not necessary in this case to decide the said issue finally for yet another reason. 5. Admittedly, the scale of pay of Sub Registrar stood revised as Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.6.1996 whereas the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent remained the same i.e. Rs.1520-2660. Assuming that the post of Sub Registrar is a promotion post of Junior Superintendent, the O.P.NO.4837/02 :: 4 :: benefit of one advance increment in terms of Paragraph 24 of the Pay Revision Order was available only in cases where the scale of pay of a post in the feeder category and the promotion post was the same. If the petitioner's contention, that the post of Sub Registrar was eligible to be treated as a promotion post on the strength of the revision of scale of pay of Sub Registrar with effect from 1.6.1996, is accepted, it will mean that paragraph 24 of the pay revision order of 1993 would not, therefore, be applicable in the case of a person, who is appointed to the post of Sub Registrar from that of Junior Superintendent, irrespective of whether the appointment is by transfer or by promotion. It cannot, therefore, be said that the stand taken in Ext.P7 is, perverse or resultant upon an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//