IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22149 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. CENTRAL STATE FARM EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC) ARALAM FARM, ARALAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT. 2. O.V.JAMES, S/O.VARGHESE, FIELD MAN ARALAM FARM, ARALAR, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBES, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR ,SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR ARALAM FARM, P.O.ARALAM FARM, KANNUR DISTRICT. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22149 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is a Trade Union of the employees and the second petitioner is a worker at the Aralam Farm . 2. In this writ petition, what is under challenge is Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent. 3. Facts are that by Ext.P7, the Administrator of the Farm recommended to the 1st respondent to pass orders for the revision of scales of pay of employees of the farm with effect from the date on which the State Farm Corporation of India revised the scale of pay of its employees as per Exts.P3 and P4 w.e.f. 1/1/2006. Complaining of delay in passing orders on Ext.P7, petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.7358/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing that the 1st respondent shall pass orders in the manner as directed therein. Accordingly, the claim was considered and Ext.P9 order was passed rejecting the claim. It is this order, which is under challenge. 4. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners WPC No. 22149/10 :2 : is that prior to the Kerala Government taking over the Aralam Farm by a tripartite agreement dated 21/6/2004, the farm was administered by the State Farms Corporation of India (SFCI). It is stated that employees of the farm were governed by the conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of SFCI. According to the petitioners, even for the period subsequent to the transfer of the establishment to the State Government, they are entitled to be extended the conditions of service as applicable to SFCI. They also state that Ext.P10 judgment was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.22346/09 and connected cases, accepting the undertaking given in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State and that this Court directed that if the service conditions of the employees of the Farm is redetermined based on the conditions of service of their counterparts in State Government Service, such exercise shall not result in any detriment to the service conditions of the employees of the Farm. On this ground also, petitioners contend that they are entitled to be given parity with the employees of the SFCI. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are now under the employment of the 1st respondent State. In this writ petition, WPC No. 22149/10 :3 : what is claimed by the petitioners is parity with the employees of SFCI. Neither in the tripartite agreement on the basis of which the State Government took over the Farm nor in any other subsequent orders issued by the State Government, is there a commitment on the part of the State Government to extend to the petitioners the benefit as applicable to the employees of the SFCI. 6. On the other hand, in the affidavit filed by the State Government in the writ petition resulting in Ext.P10 judgment, all that the State Government stated was that these employees have to be brought under the control of the State Government and their service conditions have to be determined based on the conditions of service of their counterparts in the State Government service. In the judgment, while accepting this plea, this Court only said that as and when the exercise of redetermination of the service conditions is undertaken, it shall not result in any order prejudicial to the employees like the petitioners. This does not, to my mind, mean that this Court directed that the petitioners should be given the benefit as applicable to the employees of SFCI. On the other hand, it only meant that no order resulting in any prejudice to the service WPC No. 22149/10 :4 : conditions enjoyed by the employees of the Aralam Farm should be passed. 7. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for parity with the employees of the SFCI is unsustainable and the view taken in Ext.P9 that their entitlement at best is only for parity with their counterparts in the State Government Service cannot be said to be illegal for any reason. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp