IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20293 of 2006(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.HILDA, FULL TIME MENIAL, G.H.S.S. MATHAMANGALAM, P.O.M.M.BAZAR, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 4. P.V.NARAYANI, FULL TIME MENIAL, G.H.S.S. MATHAMANGALAM, P.O.M.M.BAZAR, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, R4 BY ADV.MR.M.SASINDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20293/2006-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/01/2000 IN O.P. NO. 3033/2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20293 of 2006-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is seeking for pay parity with the scale of pay that was enjoyed by the 4th respondent. The date of joining of the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the part time post as well as full time post of Menial respectively are given in para 2 of the writ petition which is noted below: Petitioner 4 th Respondent Date of joining as PTCM-20.11.1997 Date of joining as PTCM-3.5.1978 Date of joining as FTCM-4.10.1990 Date of joining as FTCM - 13.8.91 Total pay received - Rs.6692/- p.m. Total pay received - Rs.7332/- p.m. 2. Going by the scale of pay that is mentioned in para 2, admittedly the petitioner is getting a lesser pay. It appears that there were writ petitions before this court seeking for a direction to reckon the entire contingent service for the purpose of service benefits including grade promotion. The petitioner was not extended the benefit which was granted to a few persons which resulted in the petitioner getting a lesser pay than her junior. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is explained wpc 20293/2006 2 that the 4th respondent was a beneficiary to a judgment of this court which was reversed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.46/2000. This court held that part-time contingent service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of increment, leave, promotion, etc. But it was clarified by the Division Bench that if benefits were already given, that should not be recovered. Accordingly, the benefit given to the 4th respondent was not recovered. In the case of the 4th respondent, the 23 years of grade was given reckoning her part-time service. In fact, the said benefit given to her was not interfered with, in the light of the directions issued in Writ Appeal No.46/2000. 4. The principles declared by this court in W.A.No.46/2000 will apply to the petitioner also. In that view of the matter, merely because the 4th respondent was granted a benefit, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the scale of pay enjoyed by the 4th respondent. 5. Therefore, the writ petition fails. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent was made a party unnecessarily and therefore she is entitled to be paid the cost. In the facts and circumstances, the said prayer is rejected. The writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/