IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33011 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBASH KURIAKOSE, KOCHUPURACKAL VEEDU, ASAMANNUR P.O., ODAKKALI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR 680 653, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33011 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as Artist Photographer under the 2nd respondent with effect from 5.7.1979. According to the petitioner, such appointment was in the Central Scale of pay of Rs.550-900. It is stated that on the basis of the Government Order dated 16.12.1978 he was brought into the State scale of Rs.700-1270. He continued in service and on attaining superannuation, retired from service on 31.1.2007. His grievance is that as a result of change in the scale of pay, his pay was adversely affected and as a result of which even persons who were drawing lesser pay have drawn higher pay than the petitioner. Representations filed were rejected. Therefore this writ petition is filed. As already noticed, the change which is allegedly prejudicial to the petitioner was also effected soon after cmmencement of service and the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in pursuing the matter is that he was not aware of the change in the pay scale. This explanation cannot be accepted for the reason that WPC .No.33011/09 :2 : till he retired from service, petitioner was drawing the pay as revised and fixed in the State scale and petitioner could not have been unaware of change of scale of pay as that others were drawing more pay. Therefore the theory that the petitioner was unaware of the change in the pay scale is absolutely unbelievable and cannot be accepted. In my view, the challenge now raised is highly belated and on that basis the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/