IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 11995 of 1998(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- T.P. JACOB, (RTIRED VIGILANCE OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD) M-131, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, COCHIN- 682 033. BY ADV. MR.K.N.RAVEENDRAN MR.C.S.MANU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. RUBBER BOARD, (MINISTERY OF COMMERCE GOVT. OF INDIA), PB NO. 1122, SUBJAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM, 686 001, KERALA STATE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 011. 3. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, HOME DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI- 600 009. R1 BY BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, MR.THOMAS VELLAPPALLY. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 11995/1998-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/01/1984 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED/ 18/01/1984 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER (MS)NO.1940 DATED 31/08/1984 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE POLICE NOTE NO.72 DATED 11/09/1985 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 20/01/1987 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.105/87/EST DATED 27/08/1987 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.105/87/EST DATED 27/10/1987 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/01/1994 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.105/94/EST DATED 07/04/1994 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 12/07/1994 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.22/2/85/EST DATED 23/12/1985 OF THE RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 23/12/1985 OF -DO-. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PAGE NOS.4 AND 5 OF THE NOTE SHEET DATED 09/01/1987 AND 11/01/1987. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/10/1995 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/07/1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/11/1997 IN O.P. NO. 19132 OF 1997-C OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2/41/97/EST DATED 27/02/1998 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE OPTION DATED 27/12/1982 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/02/1998 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P. NO.11995 OF 1998 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Prayers sought for in this Original Petition is to quash Ext.P9 and Ext.P17 and to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.1300-1700 with effect from 23.12.1985 and to refix the pensionary benefits on that basis. 2. Petitioner entered service in the Tamil Nadu Police as Sub Inspector way back in 1980. He earned promotions and was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police. While so, he joined the first respondent on deputation as Vigilance Officer with effect from 26.1.1980. On joining, by Ext.R1(a), petitioner opted to draw pay in the scale of 1100-1600 which was prevailing in the Government of Tamil Nadu and which was also the Scale of Pay of Vigilance Officer. He continued on deputation and meanwhile he was promoted in the parent department as Additional Superintendent of Police with effect from 11.9.1985. 3. Subsequently, on 21.1.1987, petitioner was absorbed in the service of the first respondent and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the service of the first respondent on 31.3.1987. Subsequently, Rubber Board issued Ext.P6, directing his absorption into service with O.P.No.11995/98 :2 : effect from 26.1.1980. On retirement, he was also allowed pension at the rate of Rs.1750/- by Ext.P7 order. 4. Long thereafter in 1994, petitioner filed representations praying for revision of benefits taking into account his service in the Tamil Nadu Government as well. That was rejected. The appeal filed by him was considered by the 2nd respondent and Ext.R1(b) order was issued. In Ext.R1(b) the 2nd respondent has proceeded, as though petitioner was absorbed with effect from 1987 and Ext.P6 order making the absorption effective from 1980 was not even referred to. In this order it is stated that the date of absorption of the petitioner should be revised and the petitioner should be treated as on deputation up to 10.9.1985 and absorption should be effective from 11.9.1985. Based on Ext.P15, consequential order was passed by the first respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P17. 5. The only question that arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to fixation of pay as claimed, with consequential benefits. 6. From the counter affidavit it would appear that on joining on deputation the petitioner opted for the scale 1100-1600. It is stated that although he earned promotion in his parent department since his option against Ext.R1(a) continued without any further revision, Petitioner continued to get O.P.No.11995/98 :3 : pay in the scale of 1100-1600, which was also the scale of pay of the Vigilance Officer, under the first respondent. Respondents also contend that the total emoluments of the petitioner was Rs.2915/- which would have been only Rs.2643/-, had the petitioner continued in his parent department. It was while so the petitioner was absorbed into the regular service of the Board. It is stated that although the parent department ought to have made prorata contribution of the pension, it was not done and that inspite of it, the first respondent paid pension to the petitioner. The respondent therefore contends that pay that is due to the petitioner has been rightly fixed and the petitioner is not entitled to any further monetary benefits. 7. In the light of the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit about which no dispute has been raised by filing a reply affidavit, I am inclined to think that the entitlement of the petitioner is correctly recognized by the first respondent. In my view, on facts the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Original petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/