IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 32769 of 2002(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------- 1. AJI V.S., II GRADE DRAFTSMAN, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. C.RAMANY, SURVEYOR, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. K.VIDHYADHARAN, SURVEYOR, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. 4. T.S.SULOCHANA, I GRADE DRAFTSMAN, DIST.SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S) :- -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA BABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt OP.No. 32769 of 2002 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of G.O. (Ms) No.808/2001 (106)/Fin. Dated 8-6-2001. Ext.P2 :- Copy of representation dt.6-8-2001 filed by the petitioners before the 1st respondent. Ext.P3 :- Copy of Letter No.70651/PRCC. 2/2001/Fin. dt.13-6-2002 of the 1st respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- O.P. No.32769 of 2002 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2011 J U D G M E N T First petitioner was a Draftsman Grade-II in the Soil Conservation Unit of the Agricultural Department. Petitioners 2 and 3 were working as Surveyors in the same Unit. Similarly, the 4th petitioner was working as Draftsman Grade-I. According to the petitioners, in so far as the pay scale is concerned, even in the 1997 pay revision order which came into force with effect from 1.3.1997, they were treated on par with their counterparts in the PWD and were given pay in the scale of Rs.3590-5400. 2. Petitioners submit that in paragraph 6 of the pay revision order the Government reserved power to increase the scale of pay of certain categories of non clerical staff to the pay applicable to the next higher cadre. It is stated that based on the representations made by their counterparts in O.P. No.32769 of 2002 -: 2 :- the PWD, the Government issued Ext.P1 order dated 8.6.2001 revising the pay of their counterparts as Rs.4000- 6090 with effect from 1.6.2002. 3. There upon, petitioners also submitted representations claiming parity with the beneficiaries of Ext.P1. In reply to the representations they received Ext.P3 where they were advised to take up their grievances before the next pay revision commission. It is in these circumstances, this original petition is filed praying for quashing Ext.P3 and to direct the 1st respondent to revise their pay to the scale of Rs.4000-6090 with effect from 1.3.1997. 4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were always treated on a par with their counterparts in the PWD till Ext.P1 order was issued. According to them, qualifications, method of recruitment and duties discharged by employees of both Soil Conservation Unit of the Agricultural Department and O.P. No.32769 of 2002 -: 3 :- the Public Works Department were similar in all respects. Therefore, it is contended that there was no justification for discriminating them. 5. However, in the counter affidavit filed, the Government is disputing the claims in the writ petition. According to the Government, method of recruitment, qualifications and duties discharged by the employees of these departments are different. It is stated that therefore, when representations were received from the petitioners, it was decided by the Government to defer consideration of the same. On this basis, Government is attempting to justify their order. 6. I have considered the submissions made. Apart from the assertion that the qualifications, method of recruitment and the duties discharged by the petitioners is similar to that of their counterparts in the PWD, no evidence whatsoever is produced to sustain the contentions. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit respondents O.P. No.32769 of 2002 -: 4 :- have disputed these assertions. So far as the method of recruitment is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Draftsman Grade-II/Surveyors in the Soil Conservation Unit are appointed by promotion from the feeder categories of Work Superintendent and Tracer. So far as Public Works Department is concerned, the aforesaid categories of employees are governed by Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service General Branch Rules and these posts are filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio specified in the Rules. Therefore, method of recruitment obviously is different. So far as duties discharged are concerned, that again is disputed in the counter affidavit and according to the Government, duties discharged by the petitioners is also different from that of the employees of the PWD. Therefore, in the light of these facts it is not possible for this Court to conclude that the petitioners and their counterparts in the PWD form one class of employees. If that be so, there cannot be any O.P. No.32769 of 2002 -: 5 :- objection if the Government have decided to treat employees like the petitioners working in the Soil Conservation Unit of the Agricultural Department differently from the employees in the PWD. Consequently, the Government cannot be faulted, if they have chosen to defer consideration of the representations made by the petitioners as ordered in Ext.P3. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition. The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt