IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30671 of 2010(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- S.SASIDHARAN, S/O. SADASIVAN, MANI VEENA, NETHAJI NAGAR, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHADEVI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSFDC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 30671 of 2010(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO. 30/2009/CAD, DATED 24.11.09. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 7962/A3/09/CAD DATED 19.12.2009. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KSFDC/47/07/ADMN/1948 DATED 31.12.09. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2010. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 19.10.2009. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KSFDC/275/83/ADMN/1618 DATED 2.11.09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(c) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 17.7.2010 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO MANAGING DIRECTOR. EXT.R3(d) COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING SERVICE OF EXT.R3(b) AND R3(c) ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(e) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 3.06.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.30671 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service of the 2nd respondent on 31.05.2010 from the post of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (Equipments). Pay revision was effected in the 2nd respondent Corporation as per Ext.P1 Government order dated 24.11.2009. But the pay of the petitioner's post was not revised. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order commanding respondents 1 & 3 to consider Exts.P4 & P5 representations and to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 pay revision order to the petitioner and also to release all consequential monetary benefits without any delay in the interest of justice.” 2. On 21.10.2010, I passed the following order: Admit. The learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Issue notice to the 1st respondent by speed post. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (Equipments) has been objected to by the Government and that is why, the petitioner's pay has not been revised. But he admits that there is a post of W.P.(C)No.30671 of 2010 -2- Assistant Maintenance Engineer (Equipments) in the establishment and that there was no proposal for revision of scale of pay of that post. As far as this writ petition is concerned, the legality of the petitioner's promotion is not an issue. The counsel would submit that the petitioner has not yet been informed about the proposal to cancel such promotion already granted to him. In the above circumstances, the statement that it is because the petitioner's promotion was objected to by the Government that the pay revision has not been ordered, does not prima facie appear to be sustainable. When there is a post, pay revision has to be effected in respect of all posts including that post in the establishment. The learned standing counsel seeks time to get instructions as to whether the scale of pay of that post has been revised.” It was followed by another order dated 22.02.2011, which reads as follows: “The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not been granted pay revision benefits because the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post in question. But, I wanted the learned Government Pleader to get instructions not on the question as to whether the petitioner is qualified or not. The petitioner is holding a post. That post has a scale of pay. If it not the petitioner, some other person is to occupy that post. Therefore, necessarily the Government should take a decision on the revision of scale of pay applicable to that post. The learned Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions on that point.” 3. Now the Government has filed a counter affidavit producing Ext.R1 (a) Government order dated 03.06.2011 passed in the matter which reads as follows: “As per the Government Order 2nd cited, sanction was accorded for extending the benefits of Pay Revision as contemplated in the Government Order 1st cited to the employees of Kerala State Film Development Corporation subject to certain conditions. As per the letters 3rd cited, the Managing Director, Kerala State Film Development Corporation has reported to Government that the post of Assistant W.P.(C)No.30671 of 2010 -3- Maintenance Engineer (equipment) existing in the corporation was not included in the list of sanctioned posts in the pay revision order of the employees of the Kerala State Film Development Corporation and has requested to include the post in the said order. Sri. Sasidharan who was then working in the post of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (equipments) in Kerala State Film Development Corporation as per the representation 4th read above has also requested Government to include the post in the Pay Revision order and to fix his pay in revised scale of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (equipments). He had worked in the post of AME (equipments) from 19.10.09 till his retirement on superannuation on 31.05.2010. He has also filed WP(C) No.30671/10 before the Honorable High Court of Kerala for including the post in the pay revision order of Kerala State Film Development Corporation and also for getting him the pay revision benefits in the post of AME (equipments). Government after examining the case in detail and are pleased to order that as the post of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (equipments) is not a sanctioned post, it cannot be included in the Annexure to the Pay revision order of the employees of the Kerala State Film Development Corporation issued as per the Government Order 2nd cited. However as Sri. Sasidharan who was then holding the post of AME (equipments) had already retired from service and had discharged the duties of the post, it is only fair that he be given benefits of the corresponding revised scale of pay of AME (equipments), that is, Rs.6675-10550 (Pre-revised) which will be personal to him only, as a special case to settle the issue without any financial commitment to Government. The corresponding revised scale of pay is Rs.11070-18450. The Managing Director, Kerala State Film Development Corporation is also directed to take steps to eliminate the post from the Recruitment rules of the Corporation”. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the monetary benefits due to the petitioner consequent upon Ext.R1 (a) order is disbursed to the petitioner as W.P.(C)No.30671 of 2010 -4- expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/