IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 8495 of 2004(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.M.PRABHAKARAN (RETD.TOWN PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY), PRASANTHY, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 8495/2004. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 22-8-1998. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 11-10-2001. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 18870/2003. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 4-8-2003. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 30-9-2003. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 16-2-2004. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 21-2-2004. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 21-2-2004. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 7-3-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 8495 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd January, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service as Town Planning Surveyor on 20-7-1973. Subsequently, he was promoted as Town Planning and Building Inspector on 9-7-2002. He retired from service on 30-11- 2002. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to 23 years' Higher Grade in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post. Since the petitioner was not given the Higher Grade and retirement benefits, he approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 18870/2003, in which this Court passed Ext. P3 judgment directing the Director of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the claim of the petitioner in that regard. The petitioner's representation Ext. P4 filed pursuant thereto was answered by Ext. P6, whereby 23 year Higher Grade was sanctioned to the petitioner only in an intermediate scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 instead of the scale of pay of the next promotion post. Although the petitioner has got a claim for scale of pay applicable to the next higher post, with effect from an anterior date, the petitioner now submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the 23 year Higher Grade is sanctioned with effect from 1-11-1998, but in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post. The petitioner contends that by Ext. P9, the 1st respondent has sanctioned the 23 year Higher Grade to a similarly situated employee like the petitioner, namely, Sri. M. Simon in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post. 2. The petitioner has got two other claims also. The first is that when the 1997 pay revision was introduced by pay revision order dated 25-11-1998, the arrears of pay and D.A on pay fixation was to be credited to the provident fund account. The same was not credited and the petitioner retired from service on 30-11-2002. Later, the same was paid to the petitioner in cash on 21-3-2004. The W.P.C. No. 8495/2004 -: 2 :- petitioner's contention is that had the said amount being credited to the petitioner's provident fund account immediately it became due, the petitioner would have been eligible for interest on that amount as applicable to provident fund accretions. The next claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was paid provident fund sans any interest. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was paid only the amount deducted from his salary towards provident fund contributions and no interest was paid on the provident fund accretions in the petitioner's provident fund account. 3. Although a counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, the same was filed as the writ petition was originally constituted. But, subsequent to the petitioner producing Ext. P9 along with I.A.No. 16272/2008, no counter affidavit has been filed as against the contention based on Ext. P9. 4. After considering the arguments of the petitioner and the Government Pleader, I find that if Mr. M. Simon to whom Ext. P9 relates is identically situated like the petitioner, the petitioner would also be eligible for 23 year higher grade as sanctioned to Sri. M. Simon. 5. When the arrears of pay and D.A consequent to 1997 pay revision was to be credited to the provident fund account of the petitioner, the respondents had a duty to credit the same within a reasonable time. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, if the said amount had been credited to the provident fund account of the petitioner, the petitioner would have become eligible for interest on the said amount also as applicable to provident fund account. That has been denied to the petitioner by payment of the pay revision arrears only on 21-2-2004. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on that amount from 1-1-1999 W.P.C. No. 8495/2004 -: 3 :- till 21-2-2004. If the petitioner had not been paid interest on the amount credited in his provident fund account, then certainly the petitioner is entitled to that interest also. In view of my above findings, the 1st respondent is liable to re-consider the three claims of the petitioner in accordance with findings hereinabove. This shall be done by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On passing of such orders, the amounts found to be due to the petitioner shall be paid within a further period of one month therefrom. If the petitioner's claim for higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post is sanctioned, the petitioner's retirement benefits shall also be re-computed accordingly within the abovesaid period. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/