IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27244 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.PRASADU,TRADE INSTRUCTOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAAM(GENERAL SECRETARY ALL KERALA TRADE INSTRUCTORS' AND TRADESMEN ORGANIZATION) 2. JAYAMON Z.T, TRADE INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, EZHKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. M.M.MUHAMMED NISSAR, TRADE INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 . 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, PAY REVISION COMMISSION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27244 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are Trade Instructors in Technical Education Department. It is stated that in the Technical Education Department, the feeder categories for the post of Workshop Foreman are, a) Workshop Instructor b) 2nd Grade Instructor, c) Demonstrator, d) Skilled Assistant Grade-I(Trade Instructor Grade-I). 2. All these posts carried same scale of pay. It is stated that the Pay Revision Commission which was constituted as per Government Order dated 20.2.2010, convened a meeting on 8.7.2010 with All Kerala Trade Instructors' and Tradesmen Organization in connection with the preparation of next pay revision proposal. It is also stated that in that meeting it was revealed that there was a W.P.(C).No.27244 OF 2010 2 proposal for suggesting to grant lower scale to Skilled Assistant Grade-I (Trade Instructor Grade- I). According to the petitioners, if such a view is taken, their chances of promotion would be seriously affected. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on an earlier occasion also, the matter was brought to the notice of the Government and at that time as per Ext.P5 dated 22.1.1997, the Government assured that the issue would be considered at the time of revision of pay. 3. The main relief prayed for by the petitioners is to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the Pay Revision Commission (third respondent) to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 representation dated 22.7.2010 submitted by the All Kerala Trade Instructors and Tradesmen Organization. W.P.(C).No.27244 OF 2010 3 4. In W.P(C) No.24810/2010, a similar prayer was rejected and the Writ Petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 30th August, 2010. It was held thus: “4. The function of the Commission is not to dispose of individual cases or decide the rights and liabilities of parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Commission received more than 2000 representations from individuals and more than 500 representations from various Service Organizations. The counsel submitted that it would be practically impossible for the Commission to hear all those persons before submitting the report. 5. It is for the Commission to decide whether any particular individual or Service Organization or group of persons should be heard or not. The petitioner has no vested right to get an opportunity for personal hearing before the Commission. Ext.P1 notification makes the position clear that the Commission had invited the views and suggestions from the Employees Organizations, Associations, Heads of Departments and individuals. I am of the view that the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, in these circumstances. As far as the second relief is concerned, a writ will not lie commanding the respondent to redress the grievances highlighted by the petitioner and others in Ext.P2 representation.” 5. There is no reason to think that the third respondent will not consider relevant aspects. The W.P.(C).No.27244 OF 2010 4 petitioners cannot insist that the third respondent should consider Ext.P3 representation and pass a speaking order. On the same reasoning as in W.P.(C) No.24810/2010, I am not inclined to admit the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms