IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 21091 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- Y. SREEKUMARI, FIRST GRADE DRAFTSMAN, M.I CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM). RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESEENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), O/O. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22765 OF 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21091/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGES 1 & 188) OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.145/2006/FIN. DTD. 25/03/2006. P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGES 1,25 & 26) OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.145/2006FIN. DTD. 25/03/2006. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-22146/06 DTD. 4/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3.5513/05 DTD. 31/10/2006. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4.622146/06 DTD. 20/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.21091 (J), 22765 (I), 27515 (A), 27720 (Y) of 2008, 3555 (W), 5930 (I), 9319 (H), 10052 (B), 14602 (U), 14736 (J), 17339 (J), 24309 (G), 26644 (A), 28929 (I), 29608 (U), 34410 (U), 35209 (U), 35406 (U), 35407 (U) of 2009, 15202 (A), 15506 (K) & 15731 (N) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are First Grade, Second Grade and Third Grade Overseers in the PWD and Irrigation Department. On the implementation of the 8th pay revision commission report, the petitioners opted for the benefit of Clause 7 (2) of Annexure II. Accordingly, they were given fixation in the scale of pay as applicable to Assistant Engineer. However, that was cancelled subsequently. Reason stated was that in view of the provisions contained in the table to the pay fixation order that 20% of the posts will be placed in higher grade of Rs.9190-15510/-, the petitioners' eligibility was for fixation in that scale. Similarly situated persons have challenged such cancellation of the fixation given, in WP(C) No.23518/08. By judgment dated 15/06/2009, WP(C) Nos.21091, 22765 of 2008 & connected cases -2- learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. Paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as under:- “5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that the 1st respondent has misread Clause 7(2). Although as per the pay revision order the number of years of service for the purpose of first time bound grade promotion was reduced from 10 to 8, in view of Clause 53 of the pay revision order that would take effect only from 01.03.06. Therefore, the petitioner would become entitled to first higher grade promotion after completing 8 years on 01.03.06 and he does not have to wait till 05.10.06 for claiming that benefit insofar as that would be on the basis of the pre-revised scheme which has ceased to become applicable with effect from 01.03.06. Since the petitioner's date of first time bound higher grade promotion, namely 01.03.06, is between 01.07.04 and 25.03.06 (date of pay revision order), the petitioner has squarely become eligible to exercise his option in accordance with Section 7(2). Therefore, he rightly opted to continue in the pre-revised scale of pay of First Grade Draftsman till 01.03.06, to get the first time bound higher grade in the pre-revised scale and for fixation of revised pay applicable to Assistant Engineer from 01.03.06. That being so, his option date 01.03.06 is clearly in order. As such Ext.P2 is against Clause 7(2) of Annexure 3 of the pay revision order. Accordingly the same is quashed. Respondents are directed to fix his pay in accordance with his option date, namely 01.03.06, on the basis of Clause 7(2). Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears, if any, due to the petitioner on such fixation shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Against this judgment, W.A.No.1965/2009 was filed, where the Division Bench dealt with the contention in the following terms:- “2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondent joined the Department of Irrigation, as Draftsman Grade I, on 5.10.1996, pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission dated 30.8.1996. As per the Pay Revision Order WP(C) Nos.21091, 22765 of 2008 & connected cases -3- issued on 25.11.1998, based on the 7th Pay Commission report, the employees like the respondent were entitled to get Higher Grades, on completion of 10 years' service, 18 years' service and 23 years' service, as provided therein. Going by the said Government Order, he would have got the first Higher Grade on 5.10.2006. While so, the Government issued Pay Revision Order dated 25.3.2006, based on the report of the 8th Pay Commission. The salary of the employees were revised notionally, with effect from 1.7.2004, as per that order. But, the actual arrears were payable only from 1.4.2005. As per the said Government Order, the employees like the respondent were entitled to get higher grades, on completion of 8 years, 16 years and 23 years of service respectively. With the issuance of that Government Order, the respondent was eligible to get Higher Grade, with effect from 1.3.2006, as he has already completed 8 years' service on 5.10.2004. Normally, he will come over to the revised scale of pay on 1.7.2004 and get the Higher Grade on 1.3.2006. But, the respondent claimed the benefit of Paragraph 7(2) of Annexure 2 of the Pay Revision Order dated 25.3.2006. The said Paragraph reads as follows :- “(2) However, an employee promoted to a higher scale (whether by regular promotion, ratio promotion or under the time bound higher grade scheme) on or after 1.7.2004 but before the date of this Government Order will have the option to continue in the prerevised scale of the lower post till the date of such promotion and then first avail promotion to the pre-revised scale of the higher post and thereafter avail the benefit of this pay revision on the same date as such promotion. This option will be available only for the first promotion after 1.7.2004. This benefit of option will be restricted to the employees who were promoted on or after 1.7.2004 but before the date of this order.” Though the respondent was to come over to the revised scale of pay on 1.7.2004, by virtue of the above quoted Paragraph, he can postpone it to 1.3.2006 and on the very same day, he can claim grade promotion also. Claiming the benefit of the above- quoted paragraph, the respondent filed Ext.P1 representation before the second respondent. But, the same was rejected by the said officer, by Ext.P2. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P2 and also seeking consequential reliefs. The respondent founded his claim on Para 7(2) of Annexure 2 of the Pay Revision Order, which we have already quoted above. 3. But, the appellants contended that the benefit of the above Paragraph will be available only to those persons who were eligible for Higher Grade, on completion of 10 years' service, between 1.7.2004 and 25.3.2006. But, the learned Judge WP(C) Nos.21091, 22765 of 2008 & connected cases -4- overruled the said contention and according to us, it was rightly done. If the respondent was entitled to get first Higher Grade in the pre-revised scale before 25.3.2006, he need not fall back on Paragraph 7(2). So, Paragraph 7(2) is entitled for the benefit of the persons like the respondent. Otherwise, the said clause will become meaningless.” From the above judgments, it is evident that the issues raised in these writ petitions are covered in favour of the petitioners. In view of this, these writ petitions are liable to be allowed and I do so. Orders cancelling the fixation given to the petitioners in the scale of pay as applicable to Assistant Engineer are quashed. The respondents are directed to release consequential benefits, if any, due to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are allowed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg