IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 26031 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL LAB ASSISTANTS UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.SATHISH KUMAR.K., LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT B.N.V.H.S.S FOR BOYS, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.A.SURESH KUMAR, LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT IN R.A.C, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RIYAD.P.H., LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT IN PRINTING TECHNOLOGY, M.M.O.V.H.S.S, PANAYAPPILLY, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N. MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26031/2008-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 1451/SC2/07/GL.EDN. DATED 19/07/2008. P2 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E3/7747/95/DVHSE DATED 28/12/1995. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/10/2005. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/11/2006. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E3/999/2007 DATED 25/4/2007. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EG3/11857/2008 DATED 29/03/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.26031/2008-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by three petitioners. The first petitioner represents the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary School Lab Assistants' Union. The second and third petitioners are Lab Technical Assistants working in different aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. 2. The petitioners seek for equal scale of pay as that of Skilled Assistants (Trade Instructors) in the Technical Education Department. They had filed various representations, copies of which have been produced as Exts.P3 and P4 and, finally, the Government by Ext.P1 letter informed the first petitioner that the demand does not merit consideration and hence it is declined. 3. Heard Shri P.Gopinath Menon learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri N.Manojkumar learned Special Government Pleader for Finance Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that many of the points raised by the petitioners in the representations have not been considered by the Government while issuing Ext.P1. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Government has referred to the 8th Pay Revision Commission W.P.(C). No.26031/2008 -:2:- and ultimately it was of the view that “this demand is not merit consideration and hence it is declined”. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader invited my attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, especially, paragraph Nos.2 to 5 wherein different reasons have been pointed out. It is contended that in the light of the principles stated by the Apex Court in various decisions that so may factors will have to be considered while considering the parity in the scale of pay, namely, their nature of work, qualification, method of appointment etc.. Evidently, in Ext.P1 those aspects have not been detailed even though in the counter affidavit many reasons have been given. 6. Apart from the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a Judgment in W.P.(C).No.20849/2008 wherein also the very same pleas have been raised and the Government was directed to take a decision in the matter by this Court as per Judgment dated 04/08/2008. It is not clear whether a separate decision has been taken already. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader then submitted that the report of the new Pay Commission is awaited and thereafter the Government will be passing appropriate orders in the matter and at this stage no W.P.(C). No.26031/2008 -:3:- direction can be given to the Pay Commission to consider their claims. 8. Since Ext.P1 is not a detailed order, it is only proper that the petitioners' contentions are considered while considering various aspects for and against the claim and a detailed order may have to be passed. Therefore, Ext.P1 is quashed and the Government will consider the representations after hearing the representative of the first petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the Judgment and pass appropriate orders. Since the Pay Commission's report and the order to be passed by the Government with regard to the pay revision of Government employees and others are awaited, the decision as directed above will be taken after such events. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms