IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 551 of 2005(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K. SASI, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, SUB TREASURY, PIRAVOM. 2. JOSE JOSEPH, TREASURER, SUB TREASURY, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. PATHROSE, SENOR ACCOUNTANT, SUB TREASURY, ANGAMALY. 4. T.R. KRISHNA WARIYAR, TREASURER, SUB TREASURY, KUNNATHUNADU AT PERUMBAVOOR. 5. K.P. RAJENDRAN, TREASURER, STAMP DEPOT, ERNAKULAM. 6. JOSEPH M.R., TREASURER, ADDL.SUB TREASURY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVSERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GNERAL (A & E) ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MANOJ KUMAR, FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 551/2005. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.11.1998. P2 SERIES COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS P3 SERIES -DO- P4 SERIES -DO- P5. COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF TREASURES DTD.1.12.03. P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE SUB TREASURY OFFICERS. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE TREASURY STAFF ASSOCIATION P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.551 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are employees in the Treasury Department of the Government of Kerala. They are aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents cancelling the higher grade granted to the petitioners in the post of Treasurers. As per the pay revision orders sanctioning higher grades, in a promoted post becomes due on completion of 8 years whereas, in the entry post higher grade can be sanctioned only after 10 years. It is also stated that appointment by transfer was also be treated as entry post. The petitioners' contention is that as is evident from Ext.P2 series, the petitioners were actually promoted to the post of Treasurers. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are eligible for higher grade on competition of 8 years and not 10 years. Now proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P5 for cancellation of the higher grade granted to the petitioners after 8 years and recovery of the excess amounts paid to them. Those proceedings are under challenge before me. 2. Admittedly the only issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the post of Treasurer is an entry post or a promotion post. That would essentially depend upon the special rules applicable to the post. The post of Treasurers falls in the Kerala Treasury Subordinate w.p.c.551/05 2 Service Rules. As per the said Rules, the method of appointment for the post of Treasurer is by transfer from among the Accountants and Typists who opt for such appointment. In Note (ii) to Rule 4 of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Rules it is stated that the Treasurers appointed subsequent to 10.2.1964 by transfer from among the category of Senior/Junior Accountants shall retain their lien in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountant and shall be given promotions to higher categories on the basis of their relative seniority in the cadre of Senior/Junior Accountants. The above said provisions would, without any doubt whatsoever, show that the post of Treasurer is an entry post which is to be filled up by transfer from among Accountants and Typists who opt for such appointment and not a promotion post. In the pay revision orders it is specifically stated that by transfer appointments would be treated as entry post. That being so, notwithstanding Ext.P2 order, whereby it is stated that the petitioners have been promoted as Treasurers, it remains a fact that as per the special rules, the post of Treasurer is an entry post. Therefore, clearly the petitioners are not entitled to higher grade as applicable to a promoted post and are only eligible for higher grade as applicable to an entry post. Therefore, there is no merit in the said contention of the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners quoting Supreme w.p.c.551/05 3 Court decisions and Division Bench decisions of this Court submits that in view of the long passage of time after sanctioning of the higher grade, the amounts paid to the petitioners on account of higher grades should not be recovered because of efflux of time. It is admitted before me that higher grades have been sanctioned to the petitioners from 1999 onwards. Proceedings for cancellation of the same have been initiated by Ext.P5 order dated 1.12.2003. As such, I do not think that there is much delay in initiating proceedings for cancellation and recovery so as to attract the ratio of those decisions cited by the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said contention also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the eligible higher grades available to the petitioners as applicable to an entry post shall be granted to them. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge