IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 6363 of 2002(G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. DR.AYYAMKULAM JAMES LOUIS, AYYAMKULAM HOUSE, MULLURKARA P.O.,TRICHUR-680 583. 2. DR.C.H.ASHALATHA,MALIYEKKAL THEKKAKKARA, KUNDAYITHODE, POKOLATHAR-673 655. 3. DR.SONU.R., "VYKHARI", A.P.C.ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-9. 4. DR.MANUMOHAN K., KAMALA NIVAS, PUDUPPANAM, VADAKARA. 5. DR.FELIX NELSON, JEHOVAH JIREH, AMBALAPARAMBIL, MARIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 6. DR.ARUN.S., "SUJA", 31, 265 A, MAYANAD, KOZHIKODE. 7. DR.ROSHNI GANGAN, M10, S2, "GANGES", MALAPARAMBA HOUSING COLONY, KOZHIKODE-9. BY ADV. MR.P.SANJAY MR.A.PARVATHI MENON MR.ANUB ALIAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY,DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE, CALICUT. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 6363 of 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.11263 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.6363 OF 2002 CLOSED. 27.3.2009 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.E2/1455/OO/MCC DATED 25-2-00 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(P) 145/00/H&FWD DT 16.6.00 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.4.01. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1589/S2/01/H&FWD DATED 26.5.01 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 27.8.01. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT)NO.221/02 H&FWD DATED 24.1.02 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 6363 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners were provisionally appointed on a scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000 as Lecturers in the Medical College, Kozhikode by Ext.P1 order and they worked as such for the following periods: 1st petitioner from 10.3.2000 to 9.3.2001. 2nd petitioner from 9.3.2000 to 8.3.2001. 3rd petitioner from 6.3.2000 to 5.3.2001. 4th petitioner from 9.3.2000 to 8.3.2001. 5th petitioner from 2.3.2000 to 1.3.2001. 6th petitioner from 10.3.2000 to 9.3.2001. and 7th petitioner from 10.3.2000 to 26.2.2001. Subsequent to their joining duty, by Ext.P2 order dated 16.6.2000, the Government revised the scale of pay of Lecturers of the Medical Education Department with effect from 1.1.1996 as Rs.8000-135000 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioners filed representation seeking the benefit of the revised scale of pay. The same has been rejected by Ext.P4 Government Order on the ground that persons appointed on contract basis O.P.No.6363.02 2 should not be paid revised salary, if appointed before 16.6.2000. The petitioners raise two contentions. First is that the petitioners have been appointed by Ext.P1 order dated 24.2.2000 as Lecturers in the then scale of pay of applicable to regular Lecturers. Therefore, as and when the scale of pay of Lecturers is revised, they are also entitled to the benefit of that revision in so far as the duties and functions are the same. They would further submit that an artificial cut off date cannot be fixed for the purpose of paying revised scale of pay to two different sets of contract employee without any reason or nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i. to call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and P6; ii. issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing Ext.P4; iii. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing Ext.P6 order; iv. declare that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the revised pay scale as per Ext.P2. v. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 4th respondent to release the arrears of salary of the petitioners forthwith in accordance with Ext.P2. vi. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 4th respondent to pay interest @ 18% for delayed payment of the arrears of salary of the petitioners forthwith in accordance with Ext.P2. O.P.No.6363.02 3 2. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, opposes the prayers. According to the learned Government Pleader, the contract employees are not eligible for revised scale of pay sanctioned by Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that in so far as the petitioners were appointed on a definite scale of pay on contract basis, they are entitled to only the scale of pay specified in that contract and no other scale of pay, even if the scale of pay of regular employees have been revised subsequently with retrospective effect. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In Ext.P1, it is directed thus: “The following candidates are appointed on contract basis as Lecturers on Rs.2200-4000 plus other allowances admissible in the department noted against their names for a period of one year from the date of their joining duty on the specific condition that, their services will be terminated as and when candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission/Employment Exchange join duty” It is not disputed before me that at that time, the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000 was the scale of pay applicable to Lecturers of Medical Colleges. Therefore, the intention at the time of issuing Ext.P1 order was to pay to the petitioners the scale of O.P.No.6363.02 4 pay and allowances applicable to Lecturers in the Service of the Medical Education Department. I am not satisfied that the intention, while issuing Ext.P1 order, was to restrict payment of salary to the petitioners only in the scale of pay of Rs.2200- 4000 even if the scale of pay of Lecturers are subsequently revised. The intention is very clear. That is to pay the scale of pay applicable to Lecturers in Medical Education Department. Therefore, as and when that scale of pay is revised retrospectively, if the period of revision of pay applies to the period during which the petitioners worked, the petitioners are also entitled to the same scale of pay. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this original petition. Further I find merit in the contention of the petitioners that there cannot be any discrimination between provisional lecturers appointed prior to 16.6.2000 and those appointed after 16.6.2000. No nexus is discernible between the cut off date and the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the stand of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory as well. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed and Ext.P4 order is quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are O.P.No.6363.02 5 entitled to the benefit of the revised pay scale as per Ext.P2. The petitioners shall be paid benefits arising therefrom as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.6363.02 6