IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 28760 of 2007(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JACOB.P.P. ELECTRICAL LINEMAN (GENERAL GRADE) KALLALA ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION.P.O., PIN -683 503. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, KOTTAYAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (PU) DEPARTMENT, GVOERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, MR.TERRY V.JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28760/2007-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. PD/PA/8529 DTD. 18/02/2003 ISSUED BY THE PLANTATION CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT OF THE PAY REVISION COMMITTEE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 24/02/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.07/06/AD DTD. 30/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PD/PA/7749 DTD. 28/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/10/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1441/07/AD DTD. 04/08/2007 PASSED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------- WP(C) NO.28760 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Electric Lineman(General Grade) in the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. He was appointed as an Electrical Lineman having been recruited through the Kerala Public Service Commission. He is a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering and also a certificate holder from ITI. Though his posting was initially equated to that of a last grade servant, as per Ext.P1 his post was upgraded and he was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.1,010 - 2,160 + allowances as per rules with effect from 19.6.2000. Thus he came to be designated as Electric Lineman (General Grade) 2. While implementing the pay revision in the Corporation, the pay revision committee worked out parity and service conditions on a comparison with similar posts in the Government. As per the recommendations of the committee, the pay of the petitioner has been revised as per Ext.P5. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P5 has been issued after approving the recommendations of the committee as per Ext.P4 proceedings. 2 However, his case is that, he has been placed in a wrong pay scale treating his existing pay scale as Rs.780 - 1220. On the above basis, his pay scale on revision has been fixed as 2,650 - 4,150. Since his pay as per Ext.P1 is Rs.1,010 - 2,160, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.4,000 - 6,090 which is the revised pay scale of employees who were in the pay scale of Rs.1,010 - 2,160. Though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 to the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P7 order, his request has been rejected. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the specific contention of the petitioner was that his post had been upgraded to Electric Lineman (General grade) as per Ext.P1 and that his pay had been revised and fixed at a higher scale on the basis of the above upgradation, the Government has proceeded on the basis that he was a last grade servant. Though the ordinary lineman is placed in the category of last grade servants, since the post of the petitioner had been upgraded, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a higher grade, which position has been accepted by Ext.P1 proceedings. Since the above aspect 3 has been considered by Ext.P7, it is contended that Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside. 4. The contentions of the petitioner are opposed by the learned Government Pleader as well as the standing counsel for the Plantation Corporation. I have heard the counsel for the respective parties and considered the contentions advanced. 5. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner's post was upgraded to that of an Electric Lineman (General Grade). Accordingly his pay was also revised and enhanced to a higher scale. However, on the revision of his pay, he has been placed in a pay scale that is applicable to last grade servants. The question as to whether he was entitled to a higher scale of pay has been raised in Ext.P6 representation submitted to the 3rd respondent. However, Ext.P7 order has been issued on premise that the petitioner was also a last grade servant. Since Ext.P7 has been issued without considering the specific contention raised by the petitioner, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. Therefore, the matter will have to be considered afresh by the 3rd respondent specifically adverting to the case that is put forward by the petitioner. 4 In the result, Ext.P7 order is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ex.P6, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, after issuing notice to and hearing the petitioner and the first respondent also. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. sou.