IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 7131 of 2005(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHINE BUILDINGS, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.ALEXANDER, PANAMBIL, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM P.O., PIN-689 895, KOLLAM. 2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(DELETED) (R2 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DT.14.11.05 IN WPC.7131/05) ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH & SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.7131/05 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF GO(MS)NO.63/91/H.EDN. DT.21.3.01 EXT.P2: COPY OF COMMON ORDER OF THE LOK AYUKTA DT.22.5.04 IN COMPLAINT NO.36/02, 82/02 AND 93/03 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2005 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta as per Exhibit P3. 2. The 1st respondent herein retired from service as Selection Grade Lecturer. He filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta claiming fixation of pay and arrears of salary relying upon Exhibit P1 Government Order. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent comes within the 48% category, who was granted the benefit of UGC Scheme and therefore if the order is implemented then he will get double benefit. 4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that as far as the grant of UGC benefits are concerned, a reading of Exhibit P1 will show that the 1st respondent will get the benefit only from 1.4.1990 and Government was therefore of the view that till such time, persons like the 1st respondent will be allowed to retain the benefit of the State pay revision of 1988. A reading W.P.(C)No.7131/05 -2- of paragraph No.2 of Exhibit P1 order shows the following: 5. The pay of the teachers who come under the 48% category and who completed 8 years or above, on or after 1.1.1986, but before 1.4.1990 will be fixed in the appropriate UGC scale notionally on the date on which they complete 8 or 16 years applying the mode of fixation contemplated in the ready reckoner issued in G.O.(P).No.135/90/H.Edn. dt.1.6.1990. They will also be allowed subsequent increments due upto 1.4.1990 in the UGC Scales, notionally and will be eligible for back arrears from 1.4.1990 only, till such time they will also be allowed to retain the benefit of the State Pay revision of 1988.. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said order has been modified by a subsequent order GO(MS) No.69/05/H.Edn. dated 10.6.2005 and therefore the 1st respondent will not be eligible for the benefit of pay revision under the State scale. 7. A reading of Exhibit P2 order passed by the Lok Ayukta shows that Exhibit P1 order was relied upon therein. In the internal page 4 of the order, the Lok Ayukta noticed that the parties were not getting any monetary benefit out of the notional W.P.(C)No.7131/05 -3- fixation, but State Government employees were getting the benefit of State pay revision orders which came into force with effect from1.7.1988. It is also observed that even if the petitioners therein were given notional fixation in the UGC scale of pay and the consequent increments, they were to have their salary fixed as per the State pay revision order upto 31.3.1990 and the last sentence in the order Exhibit P1 makes it clear that the staff of private colleges who fall under the 48% category will be allowed to retain their benefit of pay revision order of 1988 upto 31.3.1990. This is the view taken in Exhibit P2 order. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that under the Government order relating to 1988 pay revision, College teachers were excluded and it is in that background the Government granted a restricted benefit as per Exhibit P1 order which alone is accepted by the Lok Ayukta. It is also submitted that the monetary benefit that may be eligible to be granted to the 1st respondent in his assessment will come to an amount of `8508/- for the period from 1.7.1988 to 31.3.1990. 9. The learned Government Pleader placed strong reliance upon the subsequent Government Order clarifying Exhibit W.P.(C)No.7131/05 -4- P1. Evidently, the said Government Order is dated 10.6.2005. Herein the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2001. Definitely, the said order will not be have any retrospective effect, even though the learned Government Pleader submitted that it amounts to a clarification. 10. In fact, the Lok Ayukta itself considered the matter when I.A.No.317/2004 was taken up in complaint No.93/2003 and after referring to the said Government Order, it was observed that “the said subsequent amendment of the Government Order will not have the effect of nullifying the order passed in Complaint No.93/2003. It cannot have retrospective operation. The order of Government dated 10.6.2005 have only prospective operation.” 11. In a matter like this, where the Master and servant relationship is severed by the retirement of the employee, the question is whether the subsequent order issued after retirement will deprive the retiree of the benefit allowed under Exhibit P1. 12. What was claimed by the 1st respondent is the benefit conferred under Exhibit P1 Government Order, which was validly in operation at the relevant time. Of course, the question is only W.P.(C)No.7131/05 -5- whether the remedy of the 1st respondent was to approach this Court or the Government and therefore whether the complaint before the Lok Ayukta was maintainable, as argued by the learned Government Pleader. But, in a matter like this wherein the entitlement cannot be disputed, this Court in a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not interfere with the order on the said premise, as the order is perfectly justified on the merits of the claim. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. If the benefits have not been disbursed to the 1st respondent so far, the same will be disbursed to him within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn