IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32664 of 2006(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.K. RAMACHANDRAN, VADAYAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, KANNOOKKARA P.O.,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T SRI.S.RAMESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32664/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/2/04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DATED 3/6/2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P3 COPY OF THE PAY/SALARY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6/7/2004. P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24/9/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/11/04 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/1/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/2/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVT. P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/2/2005 ISSUED BY THE DY.DIRECTOR OF COLL.EDN., KOZHIKODE. P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/2/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32664 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T While working as Senior Superintendent in the Higher Education Department, the petitioner was given ratio promotion as Senior Superintendent (Higher Grade) on 01.11.2003. After the promotion, he was given fixation of pay under Rule 28A, Part I, Kerala Service Rules. Subsequently on 24.06.2004 the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in the same scale of pay as that of Senior Superintendent (Hr. Gr). The petitioner was again given an increment in that post. After sometime, the 2nd increment given in the same year was cancelled. After retirement, consequent reduction in pension was also made. The petitioner has filed representations against the same which were ultimately rejected by Ext.P12 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P12 order. While challenging Ext.P12 order, inter alia, the petitioner takes the contention W.P.(C)No. 32664 of 2006 -2- that before passing orders, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing for explaining his stand in the matter. According to him, if he were given an opportunity, he could have pointed out that under 3rd proviso to Rule 28 A the petitioner is entitled to another increment on being posted as Accounts Officer in the same scale of pay as that of Senior Superintendent (Hr.Gr). In view of the said contention, I asked the learned Government Pleader whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard. He could not satisfy me that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard. I am of opinion that in the above circumstances it is only appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. For this purpose Ext.P12 is quashed. Ext.P12 order has been passed by the Accounts Officer of the Accountant General's Office. I am of opinion that, it is more appropriate that the Government considers it. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an W.P.(C)No. 32664 of 2006 -3- opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However I hasten to add that, I have not considered the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd proviso to Rule 28 A applies to the situation on merits and it would be open to the 1st respondent to consider whether the 3rd proviso to Rule 28A is applicable at all to the situation. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/