IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32362 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.BABU RAJENDRAN, ASHOK BHAVAN (VRA 60), NEAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Sri.M.M.SAIDU MOHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32362 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service of the 1st respondent as a Fair Copy Superintendent on 31/7/05. By Exts.P1 and P2, pay revision was effected in the 1st respondent with retrospective effect from 1/7/01. The petitioner claims that if the amount due under Exts.P1 and P2 is correctly quantified, he is eligible to be paid about Rs.3 lakhs. 2. According to him, he was issued Ext.P3 pay fixation statement indicating that the amount due to him was only Rs.1,32,813/-. Petitioner claimed the balance amount by Ext.P4 and from Ext.P6, answer to a querry under the Right to Information Act, he came to know that subsequent to Exts.P1 and P2, the management and the service organizations entered into a mutual understanding on 26/4/2008 and that the service organizations unanimously agreed to forfeit arrears of pay revision for the period from 1/7/01 to 30/6/06. In Ext.P6, he was told that the amount due to him has already been paid based on such understanding. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying that the respondents shall be ordered to pay the balance amount due under WPC 32362/09 :2 : Exts.P1 and P2. 3. As already noticed, Ext.P1 is the settlement for revision of pay and allowances and allied matters for staff and officers that was entered into between the management and unions on 27/7/07, which is long after the petitioner's retirement on 31/7/05. Petitioner is claiming the benefit of Ext.P1 settlement and therefore, he is conceding to the competence of the employees organization to represent him and enter into an agreement governing the conditions of service of persons like him also. 4. If the union is therefore competent to represent a person and agrees for the terms and conditions of service, the Union is also equally competent to forego the benefits as well. Therefore, once the petitioner concedes the competence of the union to represent him and settle the terms and conditions of service, he should also concede to the union's competence to forego the benefits on his behalf as well. No employee can ask for the best of both. In these circumstances, it has to be accepted that the management has paid the amount that is actually due to the petitioner and therefore, there is no question of this Court directing the respondents to pay any further amount due to him. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp