IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7055 of 2006(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MOTOR MECHANIC, D.M.O.(H), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SOLOMEN.M.C, MOTOR MECHANIC, D.M.O.(H), MANJERY, MALAPPURAM. 3. S.PRASAD, FOREMAN MECHANIC, D.M.O.(H), MANJERY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.SUDHEESH.A. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE HEALTH TRANSPORT OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C) NO. 7055/2006 R6 IS IMPLEADED 6. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 13.2.08 IN IA. NO.2035/08 OF WPC. NO.7055/06. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED. 7. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE, PAY REVISION (IMPLEMENTATION) CELL, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 4.3.09 IN IA. 2660/09. IN WPC. NO.7055/2006. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7055/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPIES OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.26793/01 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT. 25.1.02. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25.6.05. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 6.10.05. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 21.12.05. P8:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 16.11.06. P9:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER DT. 25.3.06. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ====================== W.P.(C) No. 7055 of 2006 ====================== Dated, this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is against the callous inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly on the part of the fifth respondent and the so called 'High Level Committee' constituted by the Government to look into the glaring anomalies as to the scales of pay fixed for the post of 'Motor Mechanic' in the Health Department which is on the lower side when compared with the scales of Motor Mechanics in other departments; whereas the qualification prescribed for the Motor Mechanic in the Health Department is admittedly much higher side than the qualification prescribed for the similar post in the other departments. 2. The petitioners have summarised the position giving a comparative table in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, which substantiates the above contention. The W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:2:- petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing O.P.No.26793 of 2001, which led to Exhibit P2 Judgment directing to consider their representation. Accordingly, the petitioners were informed vide Exhibit P3 that they could approach the next High Level Committee as and when the same was constituted for revision of the scales of pay of the State Government employees. 3. It is relevant to note that the first respondent had considered the grievance of the persons like petitioners and had recommended for equalization of the pay scales vide Exhibit P1. Pursuant to Exhibit P2 Judgment and other incidental steps, the first respondent again submitted a detailed report vide Exhibit P6, before the additional seventh respondent highlighting the genuineness of the grievance projected by the petitioners and seeking for favourable orders. It appears that the matter was caused to be considered by the High Level Committee and the additional seventh respondent issued Exhibit P7 W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:3:- proceedings asking that representatives of the petitioners or their association to attend the meeting scheduled on 6.1.2006 when the issue pertained to the pay revision of the Government employees would be considered and finalised by the Pay Revision Committee. 4. The case of the petitioners is that, despite the various steps pursued as above the newly constituted Pay Revision Committee effected subsequent pay revision without any regard to the claim putforth by the petitioners for rectification of the anomaly in the pay scales. The relevant portion of the pay revision order has been produced by the petitioners as Exhibit P9 where the existing pay scale (3050-5230) of 'Motor Mechanic' in the Health Department has been revised as 4990-7990, simultaneously giving corresponding increase in respect of the similar post in other departments (4500-7000 to 7480-11910 in Ground Water Department). In short, no factual analysis of the relevant aspects projected by the petitioners in Exhibit P5 W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:4:- representation filed before the High Level Committee had been adverted to, conducting a comparative study as to the different qualifications prescribed for the similar posts in the different departments and as to the nature of the duties being performed by such persons holding similar posts, which hence has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. The first respondent Director of Health Services has filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of the petitioners, with specific reference to the recommendations given and stating that the appropriate authority to consider the matter was the additional seventh respondent or the Government. The fifth respondent/Government has filed a separate counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events stating that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Motor Mechanic in different departments are not similar. But quite conveniently, it has been omitted to mention by the Government that they have not a case that the qualification prescribed in the case of the the 'Motor W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:5:- Mechanic in the Health Department' (as held by the petitioners) are lesser than the qualifications for similar post in other departments or that the nature of duties and quantum of work being performed by the petitioners in the Health Department are of lesser magnitude when compared with the persons working in the similar post in other departments. In fact, the specific contention raised by the petitioners as to the higher qualifications and experience prescribed for the post of Motor Mechanic in the Health Department has not been rebutted by any of the respondents in the counter affidavits. The undisputed facts are liable to be treated as admissions and as such, it is quite possible for this Court to give positive directions to the respondents, exercising the power of judicial review, taking note of the culpable laxity in properly dealing with the matter, despite the direction contained in Exhibit P2 Judgment and the assurance given vide Exhibit P3 and subsequent proceedings. This Court finds support for such a W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:6:- course from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dinesan K.K. reported in 2008(1) SCC 586. 6. It has been conceded by the fifth respondent/Government in the counter affidavit that the grievance projected by the petitioners is a matter which requires to be considered by the High Level Committee - paragraph 4 and 5. In paragraph 6, the fifth respondent had conceded that the petitioners are getting only lesser pay than “similarly situated persons” in other departments, but indirectly putting the blame on the Pay Revision Commission who is stated as responsible for fixing the pay scale; however, admitting that the grievance of the petitioners therefore requires to be examined in detail and decision is to be taken by the Government. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on getting instructions, submits that the Pay Commission Report W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:7:- contains a specific reference to the grievance projected by the petitioners/association with regard to the anomaly in the pay scales. However, no discussion is stated as made by the Pay Revision Commission as to the comparative qualifications/nature of duties/quantum of work etc. attached to the similar post of 'Motor Mechanic' available in the different departments. It is true that the first respondent/Director of Health Services has very strongly recommended the case of the petitioners. But the first respondent may not be having any data with regard to the factual position available in other departments, to have had a comparative study. This exercise could have been and should have been pursued by the Pay Revision Commission and the Government. Since it is submitted before the Court that no specific discussion as to such comparative analysis has been made by the Pay Revision Commission, the grievance of the petitioners requires to be considered and finalised by the additional seventh respondent or such other W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:8:- appropriate authority to be constituted by the fifth respondent/Government forthwith, to take the proceedings to a logical conclusion; before this Court proceeds to give any positive direction for equalization of the pay scales. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, the fifth and seventh respondents are hereby directed to consider the matter in the light of the above observations and to pass a 'speaking order' with specific reference to the qualifications/nature of duties and quantum of work being discharged by the persons like the petitioners who are working as Motor Mechanic in the Health Department, on comparison with the similar post in the other departments in accordance with law, for equalising/enhancing the pay scales attached to the post of Motor Mechanic in the Health Department. Final orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the W.P.(C) No. 7055/2006 -:9:- petitioners or their representatives. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the amended writ petition, before the fifth and seventh respondents for fianlisation of the matter. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. skr