IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 4589 of 2008(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. KLARAMMA ABRAHAM,ASSISTANT SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO KOTTAYAM. 2. SHEELA P.B., FIELD WORKER SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO KOTTAYAM. 3. MOLAMMA K. ANDREWS,FIELD WORKER SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO KOTTAYAM. 4. SARASAMMA K.P. FIELD WORKER (RETIRED) SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNDICATE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,P.O. KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4589/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DT. 22.12.1990. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT IN RESPECT OF IST AND 2ND PETITIONERS DT. 23.2.1995. P2(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTMENT IN RESPECT OF 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONERS DT. 4.11.1996. P3:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY PROCEEDINGS NO.SES /31/2001 DT. 29.1.01. P4:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER REVISING THE SCALE OF PAY OF SPECIAL TEACHERS DT. 8.1.01. P4(a):- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER REVISING THE SCALE OF PAY OF CLINICIAL TECHNICIAN DT. 29.5.02. P4(b):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P5:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LAB ASSISTANT DT. 10.3.1990. P5(a):- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LAB ATTENDER DT. 24.12.1992. P5(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.1.97 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF LAB ASSISTANTS P6:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 1997 PAY REVISION ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. P7:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER REVISING THE SCALE OF PAY OF FIELD WORKERS DT. 5.8.04. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DT. 11.4.05. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF REVISION OF SCALE OF PAY OF LAB ATTENDERS DT. 3.7.03. P9(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF REVISION OF SCALE OF PAY OF LAB TECHNICIAN DT. 26.4.04. P9(b):- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER ISSUED TO RECTIFY THE ANOMALY IN RESPECT OF THE SCALE OF PAY OF RONEO OPERATORS DT. 26.7.05. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.7.07 IN WPC. NO.20198/07. P11:- COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DT. 31.10.07 FILED BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR. P12:- COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 28.11.07 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P12 and to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of Ext. P7 with effect from 1.3.1997, the date on which 1997 Pay Revision was implemented in so far as the non-teaching staff of the respondent University are concerned. 2. Facts of the case are that by Ext. P1, applications were invited by the University for the post of field worker. Petitioners applied for the post, got themselves selected and were eventually appointed, with effect from 25.1.1995, 31.1.1995, 21.8.1996 and 17.8.1996 respectively, covered by Exts. P2 and P2(a). On appointment they were given the salary as applicable to Last Grade employees of the University. While so, by Ext. P6, Pay Revision was implemented in the University from 1.3.1997. In so far as the field workers are concerned, the scale of pay of Rs.775-1065 was revised W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 -2- and fixed at Rs.2610-3680. 3. Petitioners submit that subsequently, the Syndicate at its meeting held on 19.1.2004 and 20.3.2004 considered their representations for enhancement of the scale of pay. Taking into account the qualification for the post and the scale of pay granted to similar categories, the Syndicate resolved to enhance the scale of pay of field workers like the petitioners to Rs.3050-5230 with effect from 1.1.2004. Following the resolution passed as above, the University issued Ext. P7 giving effect to the above resolution. Thereafter the benefit of the revised scale of pay, was given to them only with effect from 1.1.2004, and aggrieved, representations were made. Reliance was also placed on Ext. P9 series of orders issued by the University, where, the University has granted benefit of enhancement of pay with retrospective effect from 1.3.1997. 4. The representations made to the University did not evoke any response and therefore a writ petition was filed as W.P.(C) No. 20198/07. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P10 judgment directing that the University shall consider their representations with notice to the petioners. Petitioners state that when they were heard W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 -3- they submitted Ext. P11 representation. Finally, by Ext. P12, the claim was turned down taking the view that there is no relation between the scale of enhancement and the date 1.3.1997. It is challenging Ext. P12 the writ petition is filed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the University having accepted the anomaly and revised the scale of pay applicable to them, ought to have given them the benefit with effect from the date on which Ext. P6 revision of pay was implemented in the University. He also heavily relies on Ext. P9 series of orders, where, according to him, similar benefit has been extended by the University in identical circumstances. 6. The University in its counter affidavit takes the plea that Ext. P9 series of orders are inapplicable and irrelevant in so far as the petitioners are concerned. According to the University, those orders were issued as part of rectification of anomalies whereas in so far as the petitioners are concerned on their representation, the scale of pay as applicable to them was enhanced as a special case. It is stated that since Ext. P7 reflects an enhancement of scale of pay, there is no substance in the claim of the petitioners for W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 -4- retrospectivity to such a revision. On this basis, the University contends that since the petitioners' case was considered as a special case and the benefit was given on that basis, the prayer made for retrospectivity is liable to be rejected. Petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit. 7. The question is whether the petitioners are eligible to have the benefit of Ext. P7, from 1.3.1997 when Ext. P6 pay revision was implemented in the University. As already noticed, the University accepts the fact that by Ext. P9 benefits were extended retrospectively to certain categories of employees, with effect from 1.3.1997. However, they contend that as the petitioners' case was not one of anomaly rectification to a special case, their claim has no similarity with the claim conceded by the University in Ext. P9 series of orders. The correctness of this assertion of the University, is what is called for a decision in this case. 8. As already noticed, by Ext. P6 when revision of pay was implemented, the field workers who were in the scale of pay of Rs. 775-1065 were given the scale of Rs.2610-3680. This scale was revised by Ext. P7 and they were given the scale of Rs.3050-5230. W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 -5- This revised scale is the scale that is applicable to Laboratory Assistants/Clerical Assistants occurring at Sl. No. 19 of Ext. P6. A reading of Ext. P7 shows that such revision was given considering the qualification for the post and the scale of pay granted to similar categories. If that be so, it is obvious that the University in Ext. P7 accepts the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated with Laboratory Assistants/Clerical Assistants who are included in Sl. No. 19 of Ext. P6. If that be so, necessarily Ext. P7 has to be taken as an exercise of anomaly rectification and not a “special case” as contended by the University in its counter affidavit. Further, the University itself admits that in Ext. P9 the benefit was given with retrospective effect from 1.3.1997 as those were cases of anomaly rectification. Since I have found that Ext. P7 reflects a case of anomaly rectification I see absolutely no justification for the University to apply a different standard in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In my view, the case of employees covered by Ext. P9 and the case of the petitioners covered by Ext. P7, are similar and therefore one cannot be discriminated against the other. If that be so, Ext. P7 to the extent the benefit of revision is confined to W.P.(C) No. 4589 OF 2008 -6- 1.1.2004 and Ext. P12 rejecting the claim of the petitioners have to be set aside and I do so. 9. There will be a direction to the University to extend the benefit of revision of pay ordered by Ext. P7 to the petitioners with effect from 1.3.1997 as ordered in Exts. P6 and P9 series of orders. Writ petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-