IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 7910 of 2005(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SALI KUKRUVILLA, L.P.S.A.,MM.MU.M. U.P.SCHOOL, KARAKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERATTUPETTAH. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7910/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7910 of 2005-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was appointed as LPSA in MMMUP U.P. School, Karakkad with effect from 15.6.1873. She had provisional service in Govt. L.P. School, Kellur in Wayanad from 3.8.1981 to 29.4.1982. The petitioner is having continuous service from 15.6.1981. 2. The petitioner was granted first higher grade on 1.7.1982 after reckoning the provisional service rendered by her. The second higher grade was granted after completing 18 years of service on 1.7.2000. For granting the same also, the provisional service rendered by her was reckoned. The third higher grade is due on 1.7.2005. At that point of time, an audit objection was taken by the Accountant General as per Ext.P1. In Ext.P1, the objection taken is that the provisional service rendered by the petitioner in Government School cannot be reckoned. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken is that the provisional service cannot be reckoned as it was a service rendered in a different service altogether. wpc 7910/2005 2 4. Learned Govt. Pleader brought to my notice a judgment in W.A. No.6/2005. The point considered therein is regarding the interpretation of various orders issued by the Government to the effect that provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category of post will be counted as officiating service and the provisional service followed by regular appointment in the same category with or without break in service will be treated as officiating service and counted for granting increments, etc. Three conditions are specified therein, viz. “(i) The posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay; (ii) The qualification and method of appointment should be the same; and (iii) The post should fall in the same service.” In para 3 of the said judgment it was held thus: “Normally, the provisional service will not be counted for granting increments or other service benefits unless there are specific rules to the contrary. Even though the Government granted the same, it was withdrawn with prospective effect from 1.10.1994. It is also specifically stated that those persons whose services were regularised with effect from 1.10.1994 will not be entitled to get the above benefit. We are of the opinion that only Government employees whose services were regularised on or after 1.10.1994 will not get the benefit and the stand of the Government in this regard is correct.” The question is whether the grades granted to the petitioner are liable to be reviewed in the light of the above legal position. A decision can be arrived wpc 7910/2005 3 at only after assessing the various aspects as pointed out in the above judgment. Hence, the matter will be considered by the Government itself. Petitioner has got a further plea that, at any rate, the recovery cannot be sustained. 5. The matter therefore will have to be considered by the first respondent itself. If the petitioner files appropriate representation before the first respondent in the matter within a period of one month from today, the same will be considered by the Government and appropriate orders will be passed, within a further period of five months after hearing the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, will also be considered. The interim order staying the recovery ordered against the petitioner, will continue till an order is passed by the Government. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/