IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 33960 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.MOHANAN, PERMANANT, LABOURER, R.T.T.CENTRE, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RESEARCH ENGINEER, R.T.T.CENTRE, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, VELLAYANI, THIRVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33960 of 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O (RT) NO.934/94/AD. DT. 30.3.1994 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 24.1.1998 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.3.1999 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 8.2.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.31.1.1997 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17.3.1999 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 13.4.1999 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.5.1999 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 5.2.1999 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 29.9.2004 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. 27607/1999 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (RT) NO.607/AD/05 DT. 19.4.2005 /TRUE COPY/ P. A TO JUDGE V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th October,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is presently working as a Permanent Labourer in the R.T.T Centre in Vellayani functioning under the Department of Agriculture. The writ petition relates to a claim for enhanced wages, when the petitioner had worked as a casual labourer in the R.T.T Centre from 1982 to 1994. According to the petitioner, he had been paid wages at the rate of Rs.12/-, 15/-, 18/- and 24/- per day progressively over the period from 1982 to 1994. But enhanced wages were being paid to casual workers in the extension counter as also in the farms. Reference in this regard is made to Ext.P3 proceedings relating to one Sri.Surendaran. Petitioner's claim for wages on a par with that paid to the casual labourers in the sales office as also the farm was considered and rejected as per Ext.P9. This was set aside by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment with a direction to the Government to consider the matter afresh and take appropriate action. By Ext.P11, the Government W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 2 considered the matter and came to the following conclusion. "4. On a detailed examination of the matter it is found that his request for granting him revised daily wages applicable to the casual workers of Agriculture Department for the period he worked as casual worker in the R.T.T.C Vellayani is not admissible as the nature of work in the Engineering Office and the farms are different. The working hours in the Engineering office is from 10 AM to 5 PM while the working hours of the farm labourers is from 8 AM to 5 PM. He has already been paid wages eligible to him for the period from 1982 to 1994, ie. as per the then existing PWD schedule of rates. Therefore, he is not eligible for arrears of wages. 2. This has been challenged in the writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: " On a detailed examination of the matter it is found that his request for granting him revised daily wages applicable to the casual workers of Agriculture Department for the period he worked as casual worker in R.T.T.Centrem Vellayani is not admissible as the nature of work in the Engineering Office and the farms are different. The working hours in the Engineering office is from 10 AM to 5 PM while the working hours of the farm labourers is from 8 AM to 5 PM. He has already been paid wages eligible to him for the W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 3 period from 1982 to 1994, ie. as per the then existing Public Works Department schedule of rates. Therefore, he is not eligible for arrears of wages. In the circumstances stated above, the request of the petitioner to grant him revised daily wages applicable to the farm labourers of Agriculture Department and also to grant him arrears of wages, was rejected." 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. It cannot be said that the basis on which the Government has rejected the petitioner’s request is untenable. After all, the extra two hours spent by a casual labourer in the farm would be a justification for additional wages to be paid to him even though he is a casual labourer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if that be so, then casual labourers in the sales office would normally start their duties only at 10.am. just as the casual labourer in the Engineering Workshop and therefore, the petitioner should have been given enhanced wages on a par with the wages paid to a casual employee in the farm. I am unable to accept the submission. It is quite well known that employees in the sales office would not be in a position to W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 4 leave their place of duty precisely at 5 p.m. They would normally be required to stay after 5 PM. Be that as it may, I am not in a position to find that the Government has either not applied its mind or taken a perverse decision while issuing Ext.P10. I also take note of the fact that petitioner is now a regular employee with effect from 1994 and admittedly he is now being paid wages on a time scale of pay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present, the scale of pay of the petitioner, still employed in the workshop, is the same as similarly situated employees in the farm or in the sales office. I6. n these circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by a further consideration of the matter. At any rate, the issue has been dealt with in a reasonable manner by the Government in Ext.P10. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 5 W.P ( C) No.33960 of 2005 6