IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2007 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 4417 of 2004(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BIJU PRABHAKAR, TECHNICAL OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE LABORATORY, KUMARAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4417/2004: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 14/03/96. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE R.2. DTD. 02/05/96. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 06/08/96. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 27/11/2000. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 15/10/2001. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PAY/LEAVE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES FORM IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 24/08/2001. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONR TO THE R.2. DTD. 17/11/2001. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 01/12/2002. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 03/09/2003. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 03/04/2001. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/10/01. EXT.P.12.A: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF LAST DRAWN SALARY DT. NIL. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/05/96. EXT.P.14.A: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 06/05/96. EXT.P.14.B: COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 06/05/96. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY, LABOUR REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM DTD. 14/07/99. W.P.(C). NO.4417/2004: EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 11/11/96. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY HLL DTD. 01/02/2001. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4417 of 2004-A ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Senior Assistant Plant Manager working in the Hindustan Latex Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. The pre-revised scale of pay of that post was Rs.4,000-7,150 which was revised as Rs.8,600-250-14,600. The Government of Kerala invited applications from eligible hands for appointment to the post of Technical Officer, Chemical in the department of Factories and Boilers on deputation in the scale of pay of Rs.2,650-4,000. The said scale of pay was revised as Rs.8,250-13,650. The petitioner was appointed in the said post as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the Government dated 2-5-1996. Later, he was regularised in service as per Ext.P4 order of the Government dated 27-11-2000 in the scale of pay of Rs.8,250-13,650 over ruling the advice of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to get salary in the scale of pay of Rs.8,600-250- 14,600 by virtue of clause 3 of Ext.P2 which reads as follows: “The officer will be allowed to draw usual pay and allowances he/she would have drawn in the parent department and will not be eligible for deputation allowance.” Wpc 4417 of 2004 2 So, he filed Ext. P8 detailed representation dated 1-12-2002 claiming the salary he would have drawn had he continued in Hindustan Latex Limited. The said representation was considered and rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 3-9-2003. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 and also Ext.P9. As stated earlier, the main ground based on which reliefs are sought is condition No.3 in Ext.P2. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The said respondent would submit that the petitioner with open eyes accepted Ext.P4. As per Ext.P4, he is entitled to get only the salary attached to the post of Technical Officer, Chemical in the Department of Factories and Boilers and nothing more. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The challenge made to Ext.P4 dated 27-11-2000 by filing the writ petition in 2004 is highly belated. The petitioner could not have been appointed in accordance with the relevant rules. But, the Government overruling the advice of the PSC has appointed the petitioner. With open eyes he accepted that. A person appointed on deputation can claim salary which he would have drawn in his parent department. But, a person regularly appointed is eligible to get only the usual salary for that Wpc 4417 of 2004 3 post. So, I find no ground to interfere with the stand taken in Ext.P9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails, and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. MS