IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 277 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1851/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS IN THE W.A ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE WA ----------------------------------- BENEDICT HAROCK, AMBATT HOUSE, DOOR NO.45/1710, PACHALAM P.O., KOCHI-12 (TRADE INSTRUCTOR (RTD), MAHARAJA'S TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 SRI.S.RAMESH FOR R1 SRI.NAVEEN.T FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No.277/2009 in W.A. No.1851/2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd September, 2009. O R D E R Kurian Joseph, J. This is a review petition at the instance of the appellants. The Writ Appeal was dismissed. The issue pertains to the claim made by the respondent/writ petitioner for the third higher grade. In the writ petition, it is brought to our notice that the essential grievance of the writ petitioner was regarding the junior drawing a higher pay, whereas the direction given by the learned Single Judge was to grant the third higher grade. The fact remains that the writ petitioner has been promoted to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade II and he has undergone a change in the scale of pay twice in the said post. However, as far as the incumbents covered by Exts.P8 and P9 are concerned, they are directly recruited to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade II and they have been granted three time bound grade promotions on account of the stagnation in the scale of pay. In that process, though juniors, they have been drawing a higher scale of pay than that of the writ petitioner. That under law is impermissible, and the latest ruling of the Apex Court on that point is reported in RP NO.277/09 2 Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others [(2009)3 SCC 94]. Therefore, the review petition is disposed of clarifying and modifying the judgment under review and the judgment under appeal to the effect that the writ petitioner shall only be entitled to the equal pay as that of the incumbent covered by Ext.P8 from the date concerned. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No.277/2009 in W.A. No.1851/2005 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 22nd September, 2009.