IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 22628 of 2001(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. CHANDRAN, LABORATORY ASST. (HG) (RETD.) SANI NIVAS, POST MUNDALLUR, KANNUR-670622. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, CFC & FIE, PAYYANAD, MANJERI. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 22628/2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 4-6-1997 EXT.P2 GOVT. ORDER DT. 29-5-2000. EXT.P3 PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DT. 9-10-2000 EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 3-1-2001. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION EXT.P6 REPLY DT. 17-11-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 22628 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service in the Industries Department of the Government of Kerala as a Laboratory Assistant on 2-11-1965 on being selected by the Public Service Commission for such appointment. He was promoted with effect from 22-8-1969. ( It is not clear as to what is the promotion post). Thereafter, he was given time bound higher grade promotion after 13 and 20 years of service. The petitioner retired from service on 31-5-1997. In the meanwhile, there was a dispute regarding seniority between one Mr. K. Krishnankutty and the petitioner. It appears that the said Mr. K. Krishnankutty was above the petitioner in the advice list. But, he joined duty only on 12-11-1965. On a representation from the said Mr. Krishnankutty, the seniority was re-assigned and the petitioner was reverted. The petitioner challenged the same in O.P.No. 8821/1994. This Court quashed the order and directed reconsideration of the matter. The Government considered the matter afresh and again passed orders, upholding the seniority of the said Mr. Krishnankutty over the petitioner. That order was also challenged by the petitioner by filing O.P.No. 5405/1996. But, this Court repelled the challenge. Consequently, the reversion took effect and the petitioner's pay was re-fixed. Thereafter, Exts. P3 and P4 fixation of pay were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the same. 2. The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 fixation was without notice to the petitioner and without taking into account the relevant facts. According to the petitioner, re-fixation should have been only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. Except stating that Ext. 3 fixation was without notice to the O.P.. No. 22628/2001 -: 2 :- petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to tell me as to what is wrong with that fixation. When the petitioner was reverted retrospectively, naturally his pay has to be re-fixed accordingly, which only has been done by Ext. P3. The petitioner had filed Ext. P5 representation in this regard, wherein also he does not specifically state as to what is wrong with the fixation. Even before me, the petitioner could not tell me what is wrong with the fixation. Of course, if the petitioner had pointed out a prima facie case to show that the fixation was wrong in any manner, certainly there could have been a direction to re-consider the matter after hearing the petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner does not state as to what is wrong with Ext. P3 fixation, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/