IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 26569 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.MAKKAR (RETIRED PROCESS SERVER, SUB COURT, MUVATUPUZHA), VATTAPPARA, NAGANCHERRY, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI-31 4. DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.M.R.SABU FOR R1 TO 5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.10.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.26569/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.30.6.90. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DTD.6.5.93. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.3.12.01. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.1.02 OF THE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.6.3.02 BEFORE THE GOVT. P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. P7. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DTD.3.8.02. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.21.4.90. (B) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.17.7.93. (C) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.10.9.02. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.26569 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service in the Civil Judicial Department as a Peon on 22.10.1964. He retired from service on 31.1.1999. He got 13 years' higher grade on 1.7.1979 and 20 years' higher grade on 16.9.1985. The Government revised the scales of pay of Government employees with effect from 1.7.1988 by Government Order dated 1.11.1989. The petitioner opted for revision of his pay scales in accordance with the pay revision order. The petitioner's grievance in this original petition is that he is entitled to have his pay scales revised in the higher grades in accordance with the computation in Ext.P3, which was rejected by Exts.P4 and P7 orders. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P7 orders in this original petition. 2. In the pay revision order, Rules 2 and 10 of Annexure III to the pay revision order, fixation of pay has been described as thus: “2. Where the pay of an employee is to be fixed in more than one post, option will have to be exercised separately in respect of each such post. If such an officer exercises option within the time limit only in respect of one scale he will be deemed to have opted for the revised o.p.26569/02 2 scale/scales with effect from 1st July 1988 in respect of the other scale/scales. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 10. Where an employee's pay has to be fixed in more than one revised scale, his pay in each such scale will be fixed under these rules. If, however, the pay admissible to him in the higher scale (revised) applying rule 28(a)/37, Part I Kerala Service Rules, with reference to the pay fixed in the lower scale (revised) is higher than the pay fixed as above, in the higher scale (revised) such higher pay shall be allowed provided the employee opts to change over to the revised scale of both the posts with effect from the same date.” 3. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the above rules, the petitioner was rightly entitled to have his pay fixed as computed in Ext.P3. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, in which the petitioner's claim has been controverted thus: “The petitioner entered service as Peon on 22.10.66 and late posted as Process Server on 1.1.68 on the same scale of pay. Since the scale of pay of Peon and Process Server was identical upto 30.6.88, the petitioner was granted 13 and 20 years reckoning service as Peon and Process Server with effect from 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985. With effect from 1.7.88 the post of Process Server was assigned a higher scale of pay than that of Peon. In order to avoid the anomally of Juniors appointed as Process Server from the post Peon on or after 1.7.1988 drawing higher scale of pay than that of Seniors appointed as process server from the post of Peon prior to 1.7.1988, the seniors were allowed to opt the post of Peon and Process Server with effect from 1.7.88 in the 1988 Pay Revision orders. The above provision is not admissible to the petitioner who had already enjoyed two grade promotions with effect from 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985 reckoning service as Peon and Process Server prior to 1.7.1988 in view of the provisions contained in Exhibit R2(a) circular. He was also granted 25 years grade o.p.26569/02 3 with effect from 23.10.1989 and 30 years grade with effect from 23.10.1994 as admissible to Peons.” 5. I am of opinion that since the petitioner has already got higher grades prior to 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985, the only benefit he can avail of, is fixation of pay in the revised scale. Admittedly the scales of pay of Peons and Process Servers were the same prior to pay revision order. It is in the pay revision order that different scales of pay have been fixed for peons and process servers. That being so, there is no question of of fixation of pay of the petitioner in the two scales applicable to Peons and Process Servers on pay revision. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.26569/02 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.26569 of 2002-K =============== J U D G M E N T 7th October, 2008 o.p.26569/02 5