IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 707 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION,REG.NO. GPR.DIS NO.31513/57/PD/57, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, S.ASOK KUMAR,ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, CRD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. D.JOHNSON, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SM), KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR MR.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.707/2008 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REPORT DR.D.BABU PAUL COMMISSION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(MS) NO. 345/03/GAD DTD. 26/11/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.125/06/FIN . DTD. 17/03/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P) NO.145/06/FIN DTD. 26/03/2006 ALONG WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ANNEXURES 1 AND 12. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P) NO.515/85/FIN DTD. 16/09/1985. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P) NO.480/89/FIN DTD. 1/11/1989. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P) NO.600/93/FIN DTD. 25/09/1993. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O.(P)NO.300/98/FIN. DTD. 25/11/1998. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 28/06/2006 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.35475/PAR-1/07/FIN. DTD. 12/06/2007 OF THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.707/2008-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the Kerala State Block Development Officers Association and the second petitioner is working as Assistant Development Commissioner (SM). The complaint raised by the petitioners is that going by the pay revision orders issued by the Government from time to time, the post of Block Development Officer and higher posts above the post of Block Development Officer have been treated at par with the posts in the Secretariat for the purposes of fixing the scale of pay, time bound higher grades/ratio promotions etc. It is pointed out that the posts of Block Development Officers are equivalent to the post of Section Officers in the Secretariat. The higher post of Block Development Officer namely, the Assistant Development Commissioner is equivalent to Under Secretary in the Secretariat. The post of Deputy Development Commissioner is equivalent to the post of Joint Secretary in the Secretariat and the post of Additional Development Commissioner is equivalent to the post of Additional Secretary in the Secretariat. Paragraph (4) gives a detailed illustration regarding the pay scales after comparing with the pay scales of the Officers of the Rural Development Department and the Secretariat. It is W.P.(C) No.707/2008 -:2:- pointed out that the petitioners have been representing before the Government in the matter and even though Dr.D.Babu Paul Commission as per Ext.P1 has submitted a report after considering the various aspects, their complaint is that the same is not being considered. It is submitted that in the pay revision 2006, none of the relevant points have been gone into. 2. By Ext.P10 the General Secretary of the first petitioner association was informed that the demands raised in their representation cannot be agreed to. It is contended that no reasons have been stated therein as to why the demands have been rejected. It is further pointed out that even though various materials have been produced along with the representation Ext.P9, none of the points have been answered while giving the reply by way of Ext.P10. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. Going by the contents of Ext.P10, it does not evidence the reasons which prompted the Government to reject the representation. Since the petitioners have raised various contentions before the Government and have rested their claim on the materials which were referred to in the representation, it was incumbent on the respondent to consider the matter on merits and give due consideration to the various aspects pointed out. W.P.(C) No.707/2008 -:3:- 4. Since Ext.P10 is a non-speaking one, the same is quashed. 5. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the representation Ext.P9, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms