IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 19423 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.GANGADHARAN, FIRST GRADE SURVEYOR(RTD.) G.S.P.NIVAS, KADINAMKULAM, PUTHUCURICHY.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, A.G'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, KAZHAKUTTOM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDA KUMAR- R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22 /02/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26163 OF 2006 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.19423 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of pension payment order No.10816001 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P2: True copy of the Order No.3/Revn/12/OP/08-09 dated 1.6.2009 issued by the 1st respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of the G.O.No.94130/PARC/2706/Fin. dated 20.2.2007 issued by the 1st respondent. Ext.P4: True copy of the Order in W.P.(C).No.26163/2006-M dated 5.10.2006 passed by this Honourable Court. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NOS. 26163 OF 2006 & 19423 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are retirees from the Survey Department. After their retirement, they were sanctioned the retiral benefits. While they were in service, they were granted the third time bound higher grade promotion and pay fixation was also effected accordingly. The said third time bound higher grade promotion so granted to them is now sought to be revised. It is feeling aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondents that these Writ Petitions have been filed. 2. The specific case of the petitioners is that the third higher grade promotion granted to them is now sought to be re-fixed solely based on the decision of this Court in Sarojini Amma Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2002 (3) KLT 573. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said decision was rendered on a different context and the question posed for consideration in these Writ Petitions is confined to the W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 2 entitlement of the petitioners to get their third time bound higher grade promotion and the consequential fixation of pay in the allowable scale. According to them, it was correctly fixed and steps are being taken to recover it wrongly. The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice that, earlier, similar issues came up for consideration of this Court in a batch of cases and they were disposed of by a common judgment in W.P. (C).No.7404 of 2006 and connected matters on 24.08.2009. As per the said judgment, after holding that the decision in Sarojini Amma's case (supra) is not applicable to cases of time bound higher grades, this Court directed the Government to consider and pass orders on the grievances of the petitioners in the matter of proposal to re-fix their pay originally fixed upon granting them the third time bound higher grade promotion. To enable the Government to make such a consideration, the petitioners therein were directed to file representations/objections in the matter. Relying on the said judgment, the Government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioners therein and the subject matter of these Writ Petitions are one and the same and therefore, it would only be proper for this Court to relegate the petitioners as well, before the Government. It is submitted that while considering the claims of the petitioners in those cases, in terms W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 3 of the said judgment, the case of the petitioners could also be considered in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 and connected cases. 3. Paragraph 42 of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 carries specific directions issued by this Court. They read thus: (a) The respondents are restrained from effecting recovery of any amounts, consequent upon the impugned re-fixation of pay and revision of pension, effected in the case of these petitioners till and inclusive of the date of this judgment. (b) The petitioners, in each one of these cases, may file a representation before the Government within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, invoking Rule 7 of Part I of the KSR, and request the Government to exempt them from the re- fixation of pay and consequent revision of their pension and also to see that the pension originally fixed in each of their cases is continued. (c) The Government shall consider the representations filed by the petitioners sympathetically and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment on humanitarian considerations and take a decision as early as possible. (d) It is made clear that the Government will be entitled to indicate, if they decide to accept the case of the petitioners, that the Government's decision need not be treated as a precedent in any other case. (e) The interim order in each one of these cases will continue to operate, till a decision is taken by the Government on the representations filed by the petitioners as aforementioned. W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 4 (f) But, it is made clear that recovery for the period, subsequent to the date of this judgment, will abide by the decision to be taken by the Government as aforementioned. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.26163 of 2006 submitted that certain other crucial aspects may also be directed to be considered in addition to the directions already issued as per judgment dated 24.08.2009 in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 and connected cases. Ext.P4 Proceedings No.27297/Spl.PRC-1/90/fin. Dated 14.8.1990 assumes relevance in the context of the claim of the petitioners, it is submitted. In fact, it would reveal the circumstances under which the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were granted fixation of pay in the next scale in the list of standard scales of pay despite their non-possession of the prescribed qualifications for promotion. It reads thus:- Inviting your attention to the reference cited. I am to inform that Draftsman Grade I (higher grade) on Rs.1330-2555 and not qualified for promotion as Technical Assistant, if eligible for a higher grade on completion of 25 years service may be allowed the next scale in the list of standard scales of pay ie., Rs.1370-2645 which at present happens to be the scale of pay of promotion post viz., Technical Assistant also. W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 5 5. Subsequently a similar order carrying similar instructions was issued as per Ext.P3 dated 20.2.2007 produced in W.P.(C).No.19423 of 2009. It reiterates the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.26163 of 2006. In fact, on a perusal of Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.26163of 2006 and Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).No.19423 of 2009, I am of the view that in the context of the claim of the petitioners, the said documents also assume relevance and, therefore, call for consideration while deciding the issues involved in this case. They would give the circumstances under which pay of the petitioners were fixed in the manner it was done while they were in service. A perusal of those documents would definitely help the respondents in taking a proper decision as to whether the pay already fixed in the case of the petitioners requires revision or not. After considering the subject matter involved in these cases and perusing the common judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 and connected cases, I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioners therein and the petitioners herein are identical and, therefore, it is only proper on my part to follow the judgment in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 and connected cases. The entire aspects of the issues were elaborately considered therein and it is only after such consideration that appropriate directions were issued by W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 6 this Court as per the said judgment. I have already extracted the directions issued by this Court in the said Common Judgment. In view of my finding that the case of the petitioners are similar to that of the petitioners therein, I am inclined to dispose of these Writ Petitions in the following manner: The petitioners herein may file representations before the Government indicating their grievances and objections on the proposal of the Government to revise their pay and pension, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case of receipt of such representations, the first respondent shall consider the same expeditiously along with the claims of the petitioners covered by the common judgment in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006 and connected matters. Needless to say, for the said purpose all the directions issued by this Court in the common judgment in W.P.(C).No.20733 of 2006, as extracted above, shall be treated as part of this judgment and the case of the petitioners herein shall also be considered in terms of the specific directions therein. At the same time, while making such consideration, the respondents shall also take into consideration Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.26163 of 2006 and also Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).No.19423 of 2009. To enable the Government to make such a consideration based on the said documents, W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 7 the respective petitioners may also forward copies of the said documents referred above along with their representations. In case the claims of the petitioners in the common judgment have already been taken up for consideration, orders shall not be passed thereon till petitioners in these Writ Petitions are given an opportunity of being heard as permitted by this Court. The decisions applicable to all the petitioners shall be taken only after hearing the petitioners in these Writ Petitions also. Further, it is made clear that till such decision is taken, no recovery pursuant to the proposal, be made from the pension granted to the petitioners. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NOS.26163 of 2006 & 19423 of 2009 8 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL. M.C. NO. O R D E R 3rd June, 2009