IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 16798 of 2000(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OVERSEER'S ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.07-3/98, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SALIH K.K., PIPE LINE SECTION, K.W.A., ALUVA. 2. THAMPI K.N., DRAFTSMAN GR.II, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI – 14. 3. YOHANNAN K.K., OVERSEER GR.III, W.W. SUB DIVISON, KALOOR, KOCHI – 17. 4. SABU U., OVERSEER GR.III, P.H.SECTION, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT. NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY FOR IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.J. KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.27598/2000 IN O.P.NO.16798/2000 Y DISMISSED 11/01/2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 9/07/1999 IN O.P.NO.7974/95. EXT.P2: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 19/08/1999 FROM 1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 29/09/1999 RECEIVED FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 21/12/1999 FROM 1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 19/02/2000 FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/02/2000 FROM 1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C.81/2000 DTD. 10/03/2000. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. M. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ O.P NO. 16798 OF 2000 Y ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th January, 2008 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Call for the entire records which led to Ext.P5 and to quash the action to confine the enhancement of scale of pay of Overseer Grade III only from 1.3.1997 instead of from 1988, by a writ of certiorari. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to enhance the scale of pay of Overseer Grade III to that of the Operators with effect from 1988." 2. First petitioner is the Kerala Water Authority Overseers' Association. Petitioners 3 and 4 are working as Overseers Grade III. Second petitioner is Draftsman Grade II. Complaint of the petitioners apparently is regarding the anomaly in the pay on the basis of the Order of Pay Revision. There was a pay O.P.16798/00 Y 2 revision with effect from 1.3.1992. By virtue of the same, Pump Operators were getting higher pay than the Overseers. They filed a Writ Petition and Ext.P1 is the Judgment, wherein a learned Single Judge held as follows: "4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority also placed before me the instruction which has been received from the Water Authority. The anomalies pointed out by the petitioner were referred to the Committee constituted by the Government to look into the various anomalies in the pay revision orders. After examining these aspects, now the Committee decided to rectify the above anomaly and granted the same scale of pay to the Overseers as that of the Operators. It is not possible to understand from the instruction that the above anomaly has been rectified by issuing necessary orders either by the Government or by the Water Authority. Anyway, it is an admitted fact that the anomaly existed. It is not possible to legally sustain the stand that a lower post carries higher scale. Therefore, the Water Authority is directed to issue necessary orders O.P.16798/00 Y 3 on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee which looked into the anomaly by raising the scale of pay of the Overseers to that of the Operators. Orders in this respect must be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment." 3. It was pursuant to the same that Ext.P5 order was passed by the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority. It is stated therein, inter alia, as follows: " Referring to the above, I am to inform you that the Honourable High Court vide its Judgment dtd: 9/7/99 in OP No.7974/95-Y directed the Kerala Water Authority to issue necessary orders on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee which looked into the anomaly by raising the scale of pay of the Overseers to that of the Operators within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. On the basis of the recommendation of the above Committee, orders were issued vide G.O.(P) No.54/99/Ird. dated 19.8.99 enhancing the scale of pay of O.P.16798/00 Y 4 Overseer Grade III to that of Operators with effect from 1.3.1997. As such, the direction of the Honourable High Court has been complied with by the Kerala Water Authority and the fact already been intimated to you vide this Office letter of even No. dated 11.10.1999. " 4. Petitioners have approached this Court feeling aggrieved to the extent that though the anomaly was rectified, it was rectified only from 1.3.1997. Complaint of the petitioners is that since the anomaly existed in 1988, the anomaly should have been rectified with effect from 1988. It is stated that the anomaly was carried over in the 1992 pay revision and it was brought to the notice of the Authority to rectify the same. 5. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, Kerala Water Authority. What is stated in Ext.P5 is that it was on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee which looked into the anomaly, that G.O.(P) No.54/99/Ird dated 19.8.1999 was issued enhancing the scale of pay of Overseer Grade III with that of Pump Operators. It is, therefore, clear O.P.16798/00 Y 5 that the Managing Director was only implementing the Government Order referred to, as per which the benefit was to be given to the Overseers from 1.3.1997. It is crucial to note that the Government Order which is the basis of Ext.P5, is not in challenge. In such circumstances, I do not see how Ext.P5 can be challenged. It is only consequent to the G.O. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 16798 OF 2000 Y JUDGMENT 11th January, 2008