IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 21422 of 2002(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.VISWANATHAN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE II, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ANTHIKKAD, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. V.I.SIRAJUDEEN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE II, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KKODUNGALLOOR, P.O. ERIYAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. K.P.AJITH KUMAR, L.D.CLERK, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, THALAPPALLY, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. CRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIRE4CTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 21422/2002. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 27-11-1979. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 28-10-1981. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 16-9-1985. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 6-6-1989. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 25-11-1998. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 8-11-2000. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 9-5-2001. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 20-6-2001. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 25-6-2002. EXT.P10 COMMUNICATION DT. 23-5-2002. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 28-4-2001. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 31-5-2001. EXT.P13 COMMUNICATION DT. 26-8-2000. EXT.P14 DO. DT. 26-2-2001. EXT.P15 REPRESENTATION DT. 21-3-2001. EXT.P16 COMMUNICATION DT. 30-5-2001. EXT.P17 CIRCULAR DT. 6-11-1992. EXT.P18 REPRESENTATION DT. 17-10-2001. EXT.P19 ORDER DT. 15-9-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 21422 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners 1 and 2 entered service in the Police Department as Police Constables on 1-8-1990 as selected by Public Service Commission. They worked as such till 2-7-1996. Thereafter, they got appointment through Public Service Commission as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the same scale of pay as applicable to police constables and took charge on 3-7-1996. The third petitioner entered service as Police Constable on 20-8-1990 through Public Service Commission and worked as such till 19-6-1996. Thereafter, he got appointed in the Mining and Geology Department as L.D. Clerk in the scale of pay as applicable to police constables, and started service in that Department through Public Service Commission on 21-6-1996. Later, he got inter-departmental transfer to the Industries and Commerce Department with effect from 24-9-1996. As per the 1997 Pay Revision Order, an employee is entitled to first higher grade on completion of 10 years service in the entry post. The petitioners claimed 10 year first higher grade taking into account their service in the Police Department also. The same was sanctioned. In view of Exts.P 9 and P10 orders of the Additional Development Commissioner and the Government, whereby it was held that computation of service in other entry post would be counted for the purpose of higher grade only in respect of 13 year higher grade and the same is not applicable to liberalised higher grades which came into effect with effect from 16-5-1985, the higher grade sanctioned to the petitioners has been cancelled, which are challenged in this original petition. The petitioners' contention is that all along, as evidenced by Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4, Government has been taking into account service in entry post in different departments in the same scale of pay for the purpose of higher grade and therefore it is unreasonable as to why the same O.P.No. 21422/02 -: 2 :- principle should not adopted in respect of liberalised higher grades also. The petitioners further contend that in the decision in Raveendran Nadar v. Kerala Water Authority, 2002(1) KLT 799, which was a case with reference to 18 year higher grade, it has been held that 18 years' service can be in the entry post or in the first regular promotion post taken together and method of appointment to the first promotion post is not relevant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ratio of that decision applies equally to 10 year higher grade as well. The petitioners therefore seek quashing of Exts.P9 and P10 and continued benefits of the 10 year higher grade. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the reasoning given in Exts.P 9 and P10 has been reiterated. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In the earlier Government order on higher grade, namely, Ext. P1 dated 27-11-1979, the term 'entry grade' was defined as the grade or category of post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. Later on, in Ext. P2 Government Order dated 28-10-1981, the Government clarified that a person who has put in service in more than one post borne in identical scale of pay in the entry grade, will be eligible for the benefit of higher grade reckoning his total service rendered in all such posts, provided such service shall be reckoned for the purpose of normal increments. The very same principle has been followed all along till the 1997 Pay Revision by Ext. P5 order. In Ext. P5, the period of the first higher grade was reduced from 13 years to 10 years in the entry post. Unfortunately, unlike in earlier Government Orders in Ext. P5, the term entry post had not been separately defined. But, in Raveendran Nadar's case (supra) this Court considered the definition of 'entry post' as the post to O.P.No. 21422/02 -: 3 :- which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. In fact, in Circular No. 54/92/(138)/Fin dated 6th November, 1992, the term 'entry grade' had been defined by the Government as the grade or category of post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. In the absence of any separate definition of entry post in Ext. P5, it must be presumed that the definition still holds the field in respect of granting of higher grade. 5. In Raveendran Nadar's case (supra), he originally joined service of the Water Authority as First Grade Draftsman on 28-2-1983. On completion of 10 years' service, he was granted first higher grade on 28-2-1993. Later, he was recruited through Public Service Commission in the inservice quota and was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 28-8-1993. He completed total 18 years service in the Water Authority on 28-2-2001. He claimed 18 year higher grade taking into account the service in the entry post as First Grade Draftsman as well as the service in the first promotion post of Assistant Engineer, which was denied to him on the ground that the method of appointment to the first promotion post was different. While considering the challenge by Raveendran Nadar against that stand of the Water Authority, a learned Judge of this Court held that the method of appointment is not relevant for granting higher grade and in so far as entry post is the post to which an employee is initially appointed by direct recruitment by the competent authority, such appointment can also be taken into account for the purpose of higher grade. Although it may not be directly applicable in this case, since it is a case of 18 year higher grade in the same service, I am of opinion that the ratio of that decision would apply to 10 year higher grade as O.P.No. 21422/02 -: 4 :- well. Further, when the intention of the Government in reducing the eligibility for first higher grade from 13 years to 10 years was to liberalise grant of higher grade, I am unable to understand how a stricter or harsher view can be taken in the matter. When for the grant of 13 years higher grade earlier the service in entry post in two different departments could have been taken into account, there is no justice in restricting the same to service in the same entry post. Therefore, the more reasonable view would be that service in all entry posts in the same scale of pay in different services under the Government should be counted for the 10 year higher grade also. That being so, I am of opinion that Exts.P 9 and P10 are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are quashed. Consequently, the petitioners would be entitled to 10 year higher grade computing their service in the Police Department also in addition to the service in their present Department. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued by the competent among the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/