IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 20457 of 2001(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C. NATESAN,DRAFTSMAN GRADE I, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. I.R. DEEPA. THIS8ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 20457/2001. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 COPY OF PROVISIONAL GRADATION LIST DT. 18-12-1998. EXT.P2 GOVT. ORDER DT. 14-12-1995. EXT.P3 GOVT. LETTER DT. 24-6-1996. EXT.P4(a) MARK LIST OF QUALIFICATION FOR PROMOTION. EXT.P4(b) DO. DO. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 21-7-1998. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 23-6-1997. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 27-11-1997. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 2-6-1997 EXT.P9 ORDER DT.15-3-2001. EXT.P10 PROCEEDINGS DT. 7-8-2000. EXT.P11 REPRESENTATION DT. 23-8-2000. EXT.P12 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 24889/2000. EXT.P13 ORDER DT. 11-5-2001. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 2-11-2001. EXT.P15 ORDER DT. 21-12-1998. EXT.P16 LETTER DT. 3-7-2000. EXT.P17 LETTER DT. 6-7-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 20457 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service of the Technical Education Department of the State of Kerala, as a Workshop Attender on 28-8- 1978. In 1985, he was promoted as Skilled Assistant. Later, he was promoted as Draftsman Grade II and was further promoted as Draftsman Grade I on 28-2-1994. On such promotion, his pay had to be fixed in the scale of pay applicable to Draftsman Grade I. According to the petitioner, the posts of Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman, Draftsman Grade I and Assistant Lecturers are equated categories and for the post of Assistant Lecturer, in the 1992 Pay Revision, the scale of pay was fixed as Rs. 2060-3200. Moreover, as per Ext. P3, Draftsmen Grade II, who are qualified for promotion as Assistant Lecturer are eligible for the time bound higher grade scale of pay of Rs. 2060-3200 applicable to Assistant Lecturers. The petitioner is fully qualified to be promoted as Assistant Lecturer also. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in the post of Draftsman Grade I, the scale of pay of the petitioner has to be fixed as Rs. 2060-3200 and pay fixed accordingly. In fact, by Ext. P5 order of the 3rd respondent, petitioner's pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 2060- 3200. However, when the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for approval, the same was rejected by Ext. P10 on the ground that the scale of pay applicable to Draftsman Grade I as per 1992 Pay Revision is Rs. 1640-2900 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the fixation of pay in that scale of pay only. The petitioner filed Ext. P11 representation before the Government and pursuant to Ext. P12 judgment of this Court, the Government passed Ext. P13 order, but rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has, in the above circumstances, filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: O.P. . No. 20457/2001. -: 2 :- “1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction of order calling for the records leading to Exts.P.10, P13 and P14 and quash the same; 2) A declaration to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the scale of Rs. 2060-3200 on promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade-I with effect from 28-2-1994 on the basis of Ext. P3; 3) A writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from effecting any recovery from the pay of the petitioner towards refund of alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioner as directed in Ext. P10.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that the post of Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman, Draftsman Grade I and Assistant Lecturers are equated categories as is evident from Exts.P1, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9 and P16. According to them, till the 1992 pay revision, the scale of pay of all these posts were the same. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Lecturer to Draftsman Grade I also, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. However, learned Government Pleader supports the impugned orders on the ground that as per the 1992 Pay Revision, the scale of pay fixed for Draftsman Grade I is Rs. 1640-2900 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to fixation of pay in the post of Draftsman Grade I in that scale of pay. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Ext. P1 shows that the posts of Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman (Mechanical), Draftsman Grade I (Mechanical) and Assistant Lecturers have been treated as equated categories. In Ext. P3, it has been clarified by the Government themselves that Workshop Instructors/Demonstrators/Draftsman Grade II and equated categories who are qualified for promotion as Assistant Lecturer are eligible for Rs. 2060-3200 as their time bound higher grade scale. By Ext. P6 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, it is stated that the Government had accorded sanction for O.P. . No. 20457/2001. -: 3 :- granting revised scale of pay of Rs. 2060-3200 to an Engineering Instructor. Similar scale of pay has been granted to a workshop instructor as evidenced by Ext. P7. By Ext. P8, another workshop instructor has been granted the scale of pay of Rs. 2060-3200. Again in Ext. P16 issued by the Senior Joint Director of the Directorate of Technical Education, he recommended to the Government as follows: “While inviting the kind attention of Government to the reference cited. I am to inform Government that the hearing on the complaint is adjourned to 17th July, 2000. In enclosing herewith a copy of the statement prepared to be furnished before the Lok Ayukta on 17-7-2000, I am to inform Government that Assistant Lecturer, Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman and D'man Grade I are equated categories. The posts were carrying the same scale of pay till 1992, when the pay of Assistant Lecturer revised vide G.O(P)No. 1025/95(66)/Fin. Dated 14-12-95 to Rs.2060-3200 the equated categories like Workshop Foreman, Engineering Instructor D'man Grade I were not included. The above categories may also be brought under the purview of pay revision – G.O(MS) No. 1026/95(66)/Fin. Dated 14- 12-1995. Under the circumstances, I am to inform Government that Workshop Instructor those who are eligible to be promoted as Assistant Lecturer and equated categories ie. Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman, D'man Grade I may be considered and a equal status and these Workshop Instructor/D'Man Grade II, Demonstrator may be placed on Rs. 2060-3200 on promotion/requiring Higher Grade, till 21-12-'98, ie. till the date of abolition of the post of Assistant Lecturer vide G.O(MS) no. 158/98 dated 21-12-1998. The financial commitment towards the implementation of the above proposal is approximately Rs.10,29,300/- per annum towards basic pay (excluding allowances) and the beneficiaries is 70 (Seventy)”. Therefore, Government themselves have accepted the fact that the post of Engineering Instructor, Workshop Foreman, Draftsman Grade I and Assistant Lecturers are equated categories. That being so, I do not find any reason to give a lesser scale of pay to Draftsman Grade I, when the equated category of Assistant Lecturer is given the scale of O.P. . No. 20457/2001. -: 4 :- pay of Rs. 2060-3200. Further, when Draftsman Grade II, which is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade I is qualified for promotion as Assistant Lecturer is eligible for time bound higher grade scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200, it defies all logic as to how the very same scale of pay can be denied to a regularly promoted Draftsman Grade I. It would be anomalous, if a Draftsman Grade II who has not yet got promotion as Draftsman Grade I, can draw the higher scale of pay of Rs. 2060-3200, when a regularly promoted Draftsman Grade I gets the lower scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900. That being so, the impugned orders are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and unsustainable. Accordingly, Exts.P10 and P13 orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to see that the petitioner's scale of pay in the post of Draftsman Grade I is fixed from 28-2-1994 in the scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200. The petitioner retired from service on 31-3-2005. It is submitted before me that pursuant to Ext. P5, actually the pay was fixed and paid to the petitioner in that scale of pay. If that be so, the pay paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered in view of the above position. However, the petitioner's DCRG is not being disbursed. The DCRG of the petitioner shall be disbursed immediately. Appropriate orders to implement the above directions shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/