IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1054 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21431/1999 Dated 05/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------------- THE KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. P.RAMANATHAN, ATTENDER (RETIRED), RURAL LIBRARY POROPADY, KANNUR P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT LIBRARY COUNCIL, PALAYAM, BUS STAND BUILDING, KOZHIKODE. SRI.P.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1. SRI.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A.No.1054 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 2nd respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein filed the Original Petition claiming that he should be given the scale of pay applicable to Librarian Grade-IV in the Government service, though he is only a Library Attender under the appellant. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the facts of the case, took the view that the post of Library Attender under the appellant is equivalent to the post of Librarian Grade-IV in Government service. Based on that finding, the Original Petition was allowed. But, the appellant Library Council expressed their difficulty to meet the financial commitment as the State is not willing to provide necessary funds. Taking note of that submission, the learned Judge observed as follows: “I do not find any basis for such apprehension because I have held that the petitioner becomes entitled to pay revision benefits by virtue of Ext.P3. Therefore, all the benefits W.A.No.1054/2009 2 declared by the Government as per Ext.P3 would be applicable in this case. Therefore, the Government being a party to this Writ Petition, cannot contend otherwise, and all their liabilities under Ext.P3 have to be borne by them in respect of the petitioner also.” We are of the view that the above observation of the learned Judge will relieve the appellant from the difficulty to find funds by itself to grant the scale of pay ordered to the 1st respondent herein . The burden is put on the State. So, we are of the view that not the appellant but the State alone, if at all, is aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this appeal at the instance of the Library Council is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed in limine. But, this judgment will not affect the contentions, if any, of the State concerning the validity of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps