IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22151 of 2003(K) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. P.D. DEVASIA, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. DEVASIA, HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, VALAVOOR – 686 635, VIA. MARANGATTUPALLY. 2. V. SIVADASAN, S/O. K. VELUKUTTY CHETTIAR, AGED 54 YEARS, ASSISTANT SUPER CHECK OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S) : -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM – 14. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALA (* CORRECTED) *CORRECTED AS THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. *THE ADDRESS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DT. 5/11/09 IN I.A. 13853/09. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 22151 of 2003(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 29/1989-C. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE G.O. (M.S.) NO. 55/97/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 73/98/G.EDN OF -DO- EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 12393/1999 – A. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 457/2002/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE G.O.(M.S.) NO. 400/87/(141) / FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 180/91/(100)/FIN OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE G.O. (M.S.) NO. 57/91/(89)/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are retirees from the General Education Department. Petitioners were appointed as P.D. teachers on 1.8.1967 and 20.2.1971 respectively. Subsequently they were promoted as Headmasters on 31.3.1983 and 30.10.1979 respectively. While the petitioners were continuing in the post of Headmasters, Exhibit P2 Government Order dated 18.2.1997 was issued by the Government. Exhibit P2 Government Order was introduced pursuant to Exhibit P1 judgment. As per Exhibit P2 Government Order the Primary Headmasters on completion of 20 years of service as Headmasters were given certain benefits. However, the said benefits were taken away as per Exhibit P3 dated 4.3.1998. Later, Exhibit P5 dated 22.2.2002 was issued in partial modification to Exhibit P3. The same virtually restored the benefits to those Headmasters who retired or who had WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 2 completed 20 years of service as Headmasters before 4.3.1998, the date of Exhibit P3 order. The petitioners, by virtue of Exhibit P3 and P5, are not entitled to get the benefits flowing from Exhibit P2. It is in the said circumstance this writ petition has been filed. 2. Exhibit P2, in so far as it is relevant, for the purpose of this case reads thus:- Government have examined the proposal in detail and are pleased to order that the private primary school Headmasters including those who were working as probationary Headmaster/Headmaster prior to the introduction of Headmaster's scale (ie. 1.7.1973) will be sanctioned a second higher grade on completion of twenty years of service in the cadre of Headmaster with effect from 16.9.1985 in the next higher time scale in the list of standard scale of pay of 1983 pay revision ordered in the G.O. read as first paper above and appropriate corresponding revised scale in subsequent pay revisions as described below. Subject to the terms and conditions contained in the G.O. issued hitherto regarding implementation and revision of pay scale. 3. Obviously, as per Exhibit P2 Primary School Headmasters including those who were working as WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 3 Probationary Headmasters/Headmasters prior to the introduction of the Headmasters scale on 1.7.1973, would be sanctioned a second higher grade on completion of 20 years of service in the cadre of Headmaster with effect from 16.9.1985 in the next higher grade scale in the list of standard scale of pay of 1983 pay revision as ordered in G.O. dated 16.8.1985. The said G.O. also provide for appropriate corresponding revision taking into account subsequent pay revision orders. The contention of the petitioners is that since the petitioners were appointed as Headmasters respectively on 31.3.1983 and 30.10.1979, they have become entitled to the benefits flowing from Exhibit P2 on completion of the required length of service as per the same. The first petitioner had completed 20 years of service in the cadre of Headmaster only on 1.4.2003. The second petitioner had completed 20 years of service in the cadre of Headmaster only on 30.10.1999. They were holding the post of Headmasters when Exhibit WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 4 P2 G.O. was introduced. However, by the time they had completed the required number of service for getting the benefit flowing from Exhibit P2 the said G.O. was modified as per Exhibit P3. Exhibit P3 G.O. in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads thus:- The Primary Headmasters who become eligible for headmasters second Higher Grade as ordered above will not be eligible for notional fixation in the senior/selection Grade of P.D Teachers. Notional fixation in the P.D. teachers Senior/Selection Grade, if any sanctioned in their cases shall be reviewed and excess amount drawn shall be adjusted against the arrears due to them while sanctioning Headmaster's Higher Grade. 4. Evidently, the benefit of notional fixation as ordered in Exhibit P2 was taken away by Exhibit P3. Indisputably, the petitioners did not complete 20 years of service while Exhibit P2 was in force and therefore they cannot content that they acquired a right under the same. In fact, they did not accrue any right. Exhibit P2 G.O. was modified by Exhibit P3. In fact, the service details of the petitioners would reveal that prior to their completion of 20 years of WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 5 service in the cadre of Headmasters Exhibit P3 G.O. came into force. Exhibit P3 was subsequently modified as per Exhibit P5 dated 22.2.2002. Exhibit P5 in so far as it is relevant reads thus:- Government have examined the matters in detail and are pleased to order, in partial modification of the G.O. read as second paper that the primary headmasters who were entitled for second Higher Grade on completion of 20 years service as Headmaster before 4.3.1998 will be eligible for notional fixation in the P.D. teachers Senior/Selection Grades. 5. Resultantly, Exhibits P3 and P5 Government Orders would show that it was issued in partial modification of Exhibit P2 G.O. and as per the modified orders primary Headmasters who were entitled to second higher grade on completion of 20 years of service as headmasters before 4.3.1998 alone would be eligible for notional fixation in the P.D. teacher Senior/Selection grades. Again, the service particulars of the petitioners would suggest that the said partial modifications also could not fetch any benefits to them. That is because they had completed 20 years of WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 6 service in the cadre of Headmasters only after 4.3.1998. In view of the facts obtained in this case it is evident that as on the date on which the petitioners had completed 20 years of service in the cadre of Headmasters, Exhibit P2 was not there and in fact Exhibit P3 and P5 G.O. came into force. At that point of time the petitioners subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Headmasters, the G.O. was introduced and certain rights were granted to them in the cadre of Headmasters. Petitioners claimed that they are also entitled to get the benefits of probation Headmasters/Headmasters who had actually completed the requirement of 20 years before 4.3.1998. The petitioners contents that the action on the part of the respondents amounts to hostile discrimination. I am of the view that the said contention could not be countenanced. Exhibit P2 pertains to a group of Headmasters who had completed 20 years of service in the cadre of Headmasters with effect from 16.9.1985. It is only WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 7 that group of Headmasters who had completed 20 years of service as per Exhibit P2 who were ordered to be sanctioned the benefits flowing from Exhibit P2 with effect from 16.9.1985. In the light of Exhibit P3 and P5 Government Orders the petitioners cannot legally claim entitlement to get the benefit of Exhibit P2 since admittedly, they had not acquired eligibility and entitlement under the same on the crucial date. Exhibit P2 is not now in force and admittedly, it was modified as per Exhibit P5. The petitioners can legally claim the benefit only if they had completed 20 years of service on or before 4.3.1998. Benefits of pay revision orders are of concessional in nature and therefore one can aspire to get benefits, only if such benefit is provided under the concerned G.O. In this case evidently the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits of Exhibit P2 in the light of Exhibits P3 and P5 on the day of which they had not completed 20 years of service One can legally claim WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 8 benefits only based on the law in force, at the relevant time. Therefore the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to benefits in the light of Exhibit P2 cannot be upheld. It is absolutely bereft of any basis. I am of the view that Exhibit P4 G.O will not improve the case of the petitioners. In that case the concerned petitioner had completed 20 years of service prior to the introduction of Exhibit P3 G.O. and, in fact, he had retired from service on 30.6.1997 that is, much prior to the date of introduction of Exhibit P3 G.O. It was taking account the aforesaid aspects that the petitioner therein was ordered to be given benefits flowing from Exhibit P2. The petitioners here in are not similarly situated to the petitioner in the said writ petition and therefore they cannot seek extension of the benefit granted thereunder. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge Exhibit P3 or P5 and claim benefits under Exhibit P2. This writ petition is WP(C) No.22151 of 2003 9 devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc