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 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1456 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.28723/2006 Dated 19/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER -------------- K.A. SOMASEKHARA KURUP(RETIRED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER) 'SURYA', T.C. 9/2536, JANVILLA LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -10. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU-R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1456 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant was an employee working under the Kerala State Library Council. While he was working in the post of Project Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.2500-4000/-, that post was upgraded as Development Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/-. Ext.P5 is the order as per which the appellant was accommodated in the upgraded post of Development Officer. He worked in that post till his retirement on 31.3.1998. The terminal benefits payable to him were settled in the scale of pay of the lower post of Project Officer. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.19774 of W.A. NO. 1456/2008 2 2001. During the pendency of the said Original Petition, the Government passed Ext.P10 order dated 20.3.2002, as per which the scale of pay of the appellant in the post of Development Officer was fixed at Rs.7800- 12,975/- for the purpose of settling his pensionary benefits. Finally, the Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment dated 21.3.2006, directing the respondents to settle the pensionary claim of the appellant, treating him to have worked as Development Officer till the date of his retirement on 31.3.1998. In the light of the direction in Ext.P10, the first respondent passed Ext.P12 order dated 26.6.2006, sanctioning pensionary benefits to the appellant, treating his scale of pay as Rs.7,800-12,975/-. Challenging Ext.P12 and seeking pensionary benefits in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,150/-, the Writ Petition was filed. 3. According to the appellant, the scale of pay of Development Officer, Rs.3000- 5000/-, has been revised as per Ext.P1 pay revision order dated,25.11.1998 to Rs.10,000-15,150/-. Ext.P1 is the order revising the scale of pay of State Government employees with effect from 1.3.1997. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that by virtue of Rule 100 of the Kerala Public Libraries (Kerala Granthasala Sanghom) Rules, 1991(the “Rules” for short) fixation of staff pattern and W.A. NO. 1456/2008 3 sanction of pay scale to the staff can be done by the Kerala Library Council only with the approval of the Government. In this case, the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/- was sanctioned to the Development Officer by the Library Council without the sanction of the Government. The proposal regarding the staff pattern and the suggestion concerning appropriate scale of pay for the posts was finally approved by the Government as per Ext.R1(a) dated 21.3.2007. As per the said Government Order, one post of Development Officer was sanctioned by the Government in the scale of pay of Rs.7200- 11,400/-. It means that the said post will get the above scale of pay from 1.3.1997 and prior to that the corresponding equated pay alone is available for that post and not Rs.3000 - 5000/-. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 6. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for grant of pay scales, sanction of the Government is not necessary. This is evident from sub-rule 10 of Rule 101 of the Rules, as per which the Executive Committee of the State Library Council is authorised to create additional posts when deemed necessary. So, the fixation of pay of the Development Officer as Rs.3000 - 5000/- is W.A. NO. 1456/2008 4 within the power of the Executive Committee of the State Library Council and the appellant is entitled to draw pay in that scale and he has actually drawn pay in that scale also, it is submitted. So, when the pay is revised, the appellant is entitled to the corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,150/-. 7. We considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. Rule 100 (viii) of the Rules reads as follows: “100. Powers of the State Library Council:- The State Library Council shall in addition to the powers and duties conferred on it by the Act and subject to the provisions thereof, have and exercise the following further powers and functions namely:- (i) xx xx xx xx (viii) to fix the staff pattern of Taluk Library Council/District Library Council and State Library Council and sanction payment of salaries accordingly with the approval of Government.” The above rule would show that the staff pattern for Taluk Library/District Library Council and State Library Council can be fixed and pay scales can be sanctioned to those posts by the Library Council. But the same can be done only with the approval of the Government. Going by the materials on record, though the Government was moved, neither sanction for the W.A. NO. 1456/2008 5 creation of the post of Development Officer nor sanction for the scale of pay of that post at Rs.3000-5000/- was forthcoming from the Government. But, as a special case, for the appellant/petitioner to draw the terminal benefits, Ext.P10 order was passed, treating the petitioner to have retired from service as Development Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.7800- 12,975/-. Rule 101(10) of the Rule reads as follows: “101. Powers and functions of the Executive Committee of the State Library Council.-- The Executive Committee of the State Library Council shall have the following powers, namely:- (1) xx xx xx xx xx (10) create additional posts when deemed necessary.” 8. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 101 of the Rules deals with the power of the Executive Committee of the State Library Council and the powers enumerated under Rule 100 of the Rules are of the State Library Council. When these rules are read together, it is clear that the Library Council is a superior authority and it can take decisions in these matters, subject to the approval of the Government. Rule 101 of the Rules cannot be interpreted to mean that the Executive Committee of the State Library Council is authorised to create any number of posts it thinks it, without the sanction W.A. NO. 1456/2008 6 of the Government. Such an interpretation will run counter to the Act and the Rules. So, we find that the appellant/petitioner was sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/- without the sanction of the Government and, therefore, he is not entitled to get the corresponding scale of pay on pay revision. The Government have sanctioned only the scale of pay of Rs.Rs.7800 - 12,975/- as per Ext.P10, for the purpose of pensionary benefits. But, in fact, going by Ext.R1(a), the scale of pay of Development Officer from 1.3.1997 is Rs.7200-11,400/-. So, by virtue of Ext.P10, the appellant/petitioner was given a better treatment. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1456/2008 7 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.1456/2008 JUDGMENT 15th January, 2010 W.A. NO. 1456/2008 8