IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2528 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.ABUSSALAM, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).2528/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a physically handicapped person, is presently working as Lower Division Clerk in the Municipal Office, Badagara. He was appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 order, as Assistant Grade-II in Calicut Development Authority with effect from 10.2.1999. He continued there upto 20.11.2004, when he was sent to the Municipal Common Service, pursuant to the request made by him and after getting sanction from the Government. Subsequently erstwhile staff of the CDA has been absorbed into Municipal Common Service. Grievance of the petitioner is regarding the fixation of pay in the post of Assistant Grade-II and which consequently is carried on when he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk. There were several proceedings initiated. Suffice it to refer to Ext.P8 judgment of the Division Bench, which preserves the right of the petitioner to pursue the claim made by him for protection of pay, which the counsel for the petitioner points out is in consonance with Rule 37(b) of Part-I of W.P.(C).2528/2008 2 KSR. Petitioner's claim is contained in Ext.P6 and that is pending before the Government, as acknowledged in Ext.P7 counter affidavit filed in earlier Contempt of Court case instituted by the Petitioner against the Calicut Development Authority. It is further evidenced from Ext.P5 communication sent by the Secretary of the Calicut Corporation. Ext.P6 is addressed to the Minister. But it is submitted before the Director of Urban Affairs. Government is the competent authority to take a decision on the request. 2. In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to forward Ext.P6 to the Government (if not already forwarded) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, second respondent shall, after hearing the petitioner, pass orders thereon within W.P.(C).2528/2008 3 two months thereafter. If the petitioner's claim is eligible to be accepted, consequential benefits shall also be disbursed within the said time frame. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the second respondent. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs