IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 28723 of 2006(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.A.SOMASEKHARA KURUP, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, (RETD. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL), 'SURYA', T.C.9/2536, JANVILLA LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 28723/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER DT. 25/11/98. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER NO. 24607/A3/98/H.EDN DT. 26/09/98 DENIED REVISED PAY SCALE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30/6/95 CREATING POST OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20/6/95 FROM GOVT. TO LIBRARY COUNSIL STATING THAT NO APPROVAL OF STAFF PATTERN IS REQUIRED. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30/6/95 PROMOTING THE POST AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 14/12/00. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25/11/98 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT LIBRARY COUNCIL TO THE PETITIONER SCANTIONING HIM PENSIONARY BENEFITS IN THE POST OF PROJECT OFFICER. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11/1/2002 OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 16/6/2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27/3/2002 ISSUED TO THE POST SETTLING HIS PENSIONARY BENEFITS AT A LOWER SCALE. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 21/3/2006 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26/6/2006 OF THE LIBRARY COUNCIL SANCTIONING PENSIONARY BENEFITS. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE P&ARD REPORT NO. 29 CWS . 7/90/P&ARD DT. 31/1/91. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DT. 22/2/91. EXT.P15. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DT. 26/6/91. WP(C) NO: 28723/2006 T RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES: EXT.R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. LF. 11827/(1) PEN 1/98 DT. 30/6/98. EXT.R1B. COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DT. 19/6/06. EXT.R1C. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19/6/2006 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT. EXT.R1D. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DT. 21/07/2006. EXT.R1E. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 19758/A2/06 H.EDN DT. 18/09/2006. EXT.R1F. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30/09/2006. ANNEXURE-R1A: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 21/3/2007. True copy tga V.GIRI,J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.28723 OF 2006 ========================= Dated this the 19th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Library Council on 31.3.1998 while working as a Development Officer. According to him, the scale of pay applicable to him at the time of his retirement was Rs.3000-5000(pre-revised). Before his appointment to the post of a Development Officer, he was working as a Project Officer. Petitioner submits that under Ext.P1 government order, accepting the recommendations of the pay commission, the scale of pay of a government servant at Rs.3000-5000 was revised to 10000-15150. Though the government order is dated 25.11.1998, the revised scale came into force with effect from 1.3.1997 and since the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1998, he claims that he is entitled to the revised scale. W.P.(C)28723/2006 2 2. Petitioner submits that since he was already drawing salary in the scale of Rs.3000-5000 at the time of his retirement and therefore as on 1.3.1997, he is entitled to the revised scale of Rs.10000-15150. 3. Petitioner refers to Ext.P3 order passed by the State Library Council drawing up the staff pattern for the Library Council as such. In Ext.P3, the scale of pay applicable to the Development Officer is shown as Rs.3000-5000. Petitioner submits that the Library Council is entitled to implement the revised scales of pay taking note of the pay revision orders applicable to government servants, without a separate approval from the Government. Ext.P4 is referred to in this regard. 4. Petitioner also refers to the amendment to the Library Council Rules brought into force by Ext.P6, and submits that the approval of the government, as a pre-requisite for the State Library Council to create, abolish and upgrade any of the posts is brought in as a statutory requirement only with effect from 8.12.2000. W.P.(C)28723/2006 3 The petitioner had worked as a Development Officer even earlier and in 1995 when the petitioner was appointed as a Development Officer, no approval from the government as such was required. 5. As noted above, the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1998, but the retirement benefits were not disbursed to him. This is in spite of the fact that DCRG and pension were sanctioned to the Secretary of the Library Council as per Ext.P7 order dated 25.11.1998. Thereupon the petitioner had approached the Lok Ayukta, which had as per Ext.P8 order noted that the petitioner had worked as a Development Officer ever since his promotion from a lower post of Project Officer, and he is in normal course entitled to the retirement benefits due to a Development Officer. Petitioner sought for the implementation of Ext.P8. But in the meanwhile the Local Fund Audit had objected to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner, essentially, taking note of the fact that the government had granted approval for the up gradation of W.P.(C)28723/2006 4 the post of Project Officer in the scale of Rs.3000-5000. In other words, the petitioner was appointed as a Development Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000 even before Ext.P3 had been approved by the Government. But taking note of the fact that the petitioner had in the meanwhile retired on 31.3.1998. Government passed Ext.P10 order. Government held that pending fixation of revised staff pattern, pensionary benefits may be settled in favour of the petitioner by fixing the scale of pay of a Development Officer at Rs.7800-12975 (revised). Ext.P10 order is dated 20.3.2002. I also note that in the meanwhile the petitioner had approached this Court in O.P.19774/2001 for a direction to the respondents to disburse to him the retiral benefits payable for the post of Development Officer with 12% interest thereon. This Court under Ext.P11 judgment taking note of Ext.P8 order of the Lok Ayukta as well, directed settlement of the pensionary dues within a time frame. Apparently taking note of Ext.P11 as W.P.(C)28723/2006 5 well, and on the basis of Ext.P10, Ext.P12 order was issued by the Secretary of the Library Council. Pension due to the petitioner was determined at Rs.4,644/=. Taking note of the scale of pay applicable to the Development Officer as Rs.7800-12975, all other retiral benefits have been computed accordingly. Petitioner had received the benefits determined as per Ext.P12. The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P12 to the extent to which the petitioner has not been granted retiral benefits in the scale of Rs.10000-15150. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State Library Council. 7. I heard counsel on both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.3000- 5000, which was later revised to Rs.10000-15150 as per Ext.P1 pay revision order. He, therefore, contends that his retiral benefits must be computed on the basis of the revised scale of Rs.10000-15150. W.P.(C)28723/2006 6 9. I am afraid I am unable to accept this submission. Firstly, the staff pattern which was drawn up by the State Library Council under Ext.P3 was not approved by the Government, at any point of time prior to the retirement of the petitioner. As a matter of fact it has only been approved by Ext.R1(a) government order dated 21.3.2007, produced along with the statement filed by the first respondent on 25.6.2007. But even when such approval is granted, significantly, the scale of pay of a Development Officer is only Rs.7200-11400/=. This is even lower than the scale of pay made applicable to the petitioner for the purpose of his retiral benefits as per Ext.P10. Merely because the scale of pay fixed by the Library Council under Ext.P3 is Rs.3000-5000, it does not ipso facto result in a revised scale of pay on the strength of Ext.P1. The post of a Development Officer as part of the staff pattern was approved only years after the petitioner retired and it is the fortune of the petitioner that the government had after taking note of the W.P.(C)28723/2006 7 retirement to the petitioner on 31.3.1998 ordered that his retirement benefits may be disbursed by adopting the scale of pay of Rs.7800-12975. Apparently an indulgence was shown to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure R1(a) which has only approved a scale of pay of Rs.7200- 11400 for a Development Officer. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the approval of the government was not necessary for the implementation of Ext.P3. I do not agree. In my view Rule-100 of the Rules makes the approval of the government for a staff pattern, mandatory. No enforceable right accrued in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P3, in the absence of approval of the government. As noted above, this came about much later. 11. Apart from the above, I also take note of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P10 order passed by the Government under which the scale of pay, relevant for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits was sanctioned by the government. Ext.P12 which has W.P.(C)28723/2006 8 been challenged by the petitioner is only consequential to Ext.P10. Ext.P12 cannot be interfered with even otherwise, in the absence of challenge to Ext.P10. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/