IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 21743 of 2006(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.VINAYAKAN, AGED 57, S/O. ACHUTHAN, MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, THEKKE BAZAR, KANNUR. (TRENCHING GROUND WORKER, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY.) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF ARBAN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR, REP. BY SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.V.SATHYAPRIYAN NAIR SRI.V.M.KURIAN - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21744 OF 2006 WPC NO. 22462 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21643/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT KANNUR IN ID. 40/95 DT. 30.5.96 EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.H1-19322/02 DT. 15.5.04. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT BEARING G.O.(MS) NO.32/06/LSD DT. 28.1.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 7407/06 DT. 15.6.06 FILED BY SUSEELA. ET.P5:- COPY OF THE G.O(MS) 70/07/LSD DT. 20.3.97 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.(MS) 174/06/LSD DT. 22.8.96 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H1/17781/89 DT. 20.1.90 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 7.4.01 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.7899/06 DT. 27.7.06. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 5.2.06. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21743, 21744 & 22462 of 2006 ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Identical issues are involved in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The main issue which was raised in the writ petition now stands resolved pursuant to the interim order passed by this court on 1.6.2007, which reads as follows: “Heard. In view of the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.7407 of 2006, the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in service with effect from 5.2.1994. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be regularised with effect from 5.2.1994. Their pay shall be revised and revised salary shall be paid to them from the month of August, 2007. The claim for arrears etc. shall be considered at the time of hearing of the writ petition.” 3. Now doubt, the claim for arrears was left open in the said interim order. But taking note of Ext.P1 award and the fact that 19 other persons were granted arrears with effect from the date of dispute, there is no reason W.P.(C).NO.21743/06 & Con.cases :: 2 :: why the arrears of revised salary should not be paid to the petitioners. 4. What remains is the claim of the petitioners that the scale of pay as fixed in Ext.P2, the order passed by the Municipality pursuant to Ext.P1 (pre-revised) in the scale of 950-15-1025-20-1185-25-1485 is not correct, but it should actually be Rs.1000-20-1200-25-1575-30- 1605 going by Ext.P6, which has been referred to in Ext.P4. What has been mentioned is a pre-revised scale. Therefore, the revised scale must be commensurate with the scale of pay of Rs.1000-20-1200-25-1575-30-1605 applicable to category No.2 in Ext.P6, relating to the revision of scale of pay of the Municipal contingent employees. 5. There is yet another claim as regards non- disbursal of the risk allowance as contemplated in Ext.P6 as also Ext.P1. Yet another claim relates to the alleged failure on the part of the 2nd respondent in remitting the employees' contribution to Provident Fund in the concerned Provident Fund account. W.P.(C).NO.21743/06 & Con.cases :: 3 :: 6. The Municipality has filed a counter affidavit supporting the stand of the petitioners. 7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. All that now survives is the claim of the petitioners as regards the application of scale of pay included in category No.2 and the risk allowance and non- remittance of PF contribution allegedly recovered by the 2nd respondent. It may be noted that Ext.P10 representation by the Sanitation Workers is pending before the 2nd respondent. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) Ext.P10 shall be forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the Government within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) Petitioners may file a representation directly to the 1st respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. © Thereupon, the 1st respondent shall pass orders on the same, after hearing the W.P.(C).NO.21743/06 & Con.cases :: 4 :: petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (d) The Provident Fund contribution recovered from the petitioners by the 2nd respondent shall be remitted within two months, if not already done. Writ petition are disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//