IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28235 of 2004(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.T.GEORGE, S/O.C.THOMAS, AGED 64 YEARS, R/A. 37/920, FATHIMA CHURCH LANE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI RTD.CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MANIPUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOSUING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM 695 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.C.IYPE, SC, KSHB FOR R1 SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.28235/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD2(B) 1469/95 DTD. 15.2.95 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER 14/11/80 DTD. 20.2.95 ISSUED BY THE MANIPUR GOVERNMENT, TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.3.95 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE MANIPUR GOVERNMENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.3.95 ISSUED BY THE MANIPUR GOVERNMENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER 14/11/80-W DTD. 4.11.97 ISSUED BY THE MANIPUR GOVERNMENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.1.98 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT CLAIMING THE TSS.A. AMOUNT AND SALARY AS PER DEPUTATION TERMS. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3/BILLS/2001 DTD. 18.9.01 ISSUED BY THE HOUSING BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD II(a) 2338/95 DT.D 24.10.01 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 9.7.03 ISSUED BY THE MANIPUR GOVERNMENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD II 2338/95 DTD. 11.2.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DECLINING SCALE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCE AS PER EXT.P2 AND P4 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15.2.1995. R1(b):- COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) 4/95/HEG. DTD. 4.3.95. R1(c):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DT.D 15.2.95. R1(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4.3.95. R1(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5.3.97. R1(f):- COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DTD. 6.3.95. R1(g):- COPY OF THE SALARY DISBURSED DURING HIS DEPUTATION PERIOD FROM 6.3.95 TO 13.5.97. R1(h):- COPY OF THE TRANSFER TA. BILL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 28235 of 2004-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P10 communication whereby the petitioner was informed that the Government has declined to sanction the pay and allowances attached to the post of Chief Engineer Level I of Central P.W.D. to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. 2. This is a case where while the petitioner was working as Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Manipur, the first respondent Housing Board decided to avail the service of the petitioner to take up the assignment as Chief Engineer on deputation basis. After series of correspondences the Government of Manipur, as per Ext.P2 gave a reply in the matter fixing the terms and conditions for deputation. Condition No.8 is to the effect that the basic pay of the officer as Additional Chief Engineer as on the date of Ext.P2 is Rs.5,000/- plus other allowances. 3. Finally, as per Ext.P3 communication, the first respondent Board decided to appoint the petitioner as Chief Engineer of the Board. This was approved by the Government of Kerala also. It is pointed out by the learned wpc 28235/2004 2 counsel for the petitioner that the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext.P2 were accepted by the State Government. Finally, the Government of Manipur by Ext.P4, sanctioned the deputation and he was relieved to join the Board. 4. After completion of the period of deputation, the petitioner was reverted back to the parent State and has retired from service in December, 1998 as Chief Engineer/Secretary to Government. 5. After rejoining back, the petitioner requested for payment of salary, T.A. etc. as per the deputation terms. Ext.P6 is the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner in this regard and Ext.P7 is the reply given by the Board. Various correspondences were there in the matter. The communication Ext.P10 is issued nearly after 10 years. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Board and learned Govt. Pleader. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is evident from Ext.R1(e) and especially clause 5 thereof, that the same allows the petitioner to draw the pay and allowances he would have drawn in his parent department. Ext.P9 is the communication whereby the Government of Manipur informed the Board that the Manipur Government adopted Central pay scales in 1998 with effect from 1st January, 1996. Therefore, wpc 28235/2004 3 what is claimed by the petitioner is the revision of salary and allowances based on the pay revision implemented by the Government of Manipur. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that going by the terms of deputation what is offered is pay of Rs.5,000/- plus allowances and therefore there is no enabling clause providing for payment of pay revision benefits. 9. In fact, Ext.P10 communication issued by the Government shows that the Government was of the view that sanction for pay and allowances attached to the post of Chief Engineer Level I of Central P.W.D. cannot be granted. At any rate, the petitioner was working as Additional Chief Engineer and he will be entitled for payment of salary and allowances in the said post, subject to further revision in the matter, as evident from Ext.P9. 10. Even though it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that the pay as sanctioned by the Manipur Government as per Ext.P2 alone will govern the petitioner, the same cannot be countenanced. That will result in the pay scale of the petitioner being static in spite of the revision by the parent Government. As an officer under the Manipur Government, the petitioner would have drawn the pay revision benefits also. Ext.R1(e) is the order whereby the terms and conditions were fixed by the State Government herein, for his deputation. Therefore, I am of the view wpc 28235/2004 4 that clause 5 of Ext.R1(e) that “the officer shall be allowed to draw the pay and allowances he would have drawn in his parent department”, will enable the petitioner to draw the revised scale of pay. 11. In that view of the matter, Ext.P10, to the extent to which it denies the benefits including pay revision benefits to the petitioner which is indicated in Ext.P9, is quashed. There will be a direction to the Housing Board to quantify the amounts due to the petitioner and the same will be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/