IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15597 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SURENDRAN, S/O.POULOSE, SUDHISH BHAVAN, PERAPPALLY, VALIYAMALA, ARYANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.15597/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: A COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD.25.9.2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/TVM/NAMP/89/TVM DTD.5.2.2008. EXHIBIT P3: A COPY OF NOTICE DTD 29.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 7.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.. EXHIBIT P5: A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.15.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6: A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 15.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7: A COPY OF RECEIPT DTD 15.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- WP(C) No.15597 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rdday of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was engaged for carrying out Ambient Air Sampling work at NAMP STATIONS as per Ext.P1 agreement executed between the petitioner and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. That agreement was executed in October 2007 and the validity period of the agreement was 11 months. The remuneration fixed as per Ext.P1 agreement was Rs.170/- per duty. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the respondents unilaterally changed the rate of remuneration as Rs. 210/- per day instead of Rs. 170/- per duty. According to the petitioner as a result of the same, the petitioner's remuneration would be reduced as Rs. 105/- per duty. Since the remuneration was so reduced unilaterally even without hearing the petitioner, the petitioner refused to accept the remuneration, but continued to work. The petitioner filed this writ petition at a time when he apprehended termination of his services. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading Ext.P2 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same. ii) issue a writ or order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to do the work as per Ext.P1 agreement till the term mentioned in it and at the rate of Rs. 170/- per duty as agreed in the agreement. iii) issue a writ or order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry out Ambient Air Sampling work at NAMP STATIONS at the rate of Rs. 105/- per duty after the period mentioned in Ext.P1 agreement.” W.P.C.No.15597 of 2008 2 2. On 09.06.2008 while admitting the writ petition, in view of the submission of the standing counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's services stand terminated on 12.05.2008, I directed that the petitioner shall allowed to carry out the work as per Ext.P1 agreement. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has been allowed to continue his services as per Ext.P1 agreement, till the expiry of the period of the agreement. 3 The contention of the counsel for the respondents is that the rate stated in Ext.P1 agreement was less than the actual market rate and it is under the said circumstances that the rate has been reduced to make it on par with the market rate. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The law of contract is the same for all, whether it is a private individual, the State Government or the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Kerala State Pollution Board has with open eyes entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the petitioner agreeing to pay to the petitioner a remuneration @170/- per duty for the services rendered by him as per Ext.P1 agreement. Law does not permit the 1st respondent to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the Ext.P1 agreement. After having entered into Ext.P1 agreement the respondents are bound by the terms and conditions stipulated W.P.C.No.15597 of 2008 3 therein. That being so I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to remuneration @Rs. 170/- per duty for the work he has executed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner remuneration at the rate Rs. 170/- per duty for the work done by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 agreement for the entire period covered by the Ext.P1 agreement, not withstanding the alleged termination of the agreement on 12.05.2007 which cannot be pressed in to service in view of the interim order dated 9.6.2008. The balance remuneration payable to the petitioner @Rs.170/- per duty, shall be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd