IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5463 of 2006(A) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.S.THULASIAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.VENUGOPAL, HSA(MALAYALAM), VANDIPERIYAR PANCHAYAT HIGH SCHOOL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE. MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATTAPPANA. BY MR. MUHAMOOD T.T., SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5463/2006 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY OF PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 9.1.06 ISSUED BY R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5463 OF 2006 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in the Panchayat High School, Vandiperiyar in Idukki District. She retired from service in the year 2006. The pay of the petitioner was stepped up to that of her immediate junior Sri.T.Rajan, H.S.A of the same school in order to meet the disparity in the pay of junior and senior consequent to re-option. The statement of fixation of pay of the petitioner was approved as per Exhibit P1. Long after that, by Exhibit P2, the same was sought to be cancelled, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The main objection raised is that the junior teachers and senior teachers are working in different categories. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20914/2003 which has been followed in other W.P.(C) No.5463/2006 2 cases also. After referring to an identical contention, it was held in paragraph 3 of the said judgment as follows: “.....Further in so far as the Government order (pay revision order) does not contain any clause in the matter of stepping up of the pay and to restrict the benefit only if both senior and junior belong to the same category. The circular cannot have the effect of amending a notification that too with retrospective effect.....” Reliance was placed on the dictum laid down in the judgment in O.P.No.23261/1998. Accordingly, it was held that the audit objection cannot be sustained. It was further held that the benefit sanctioned cannot be revised based on a subsequent circular. 3. Herein also, the position is same. Senior-junior fixation was approved in the light of the fact that junior was getting higher pay. Merely because of the fact that junior was working in different category, it cannot be said that refixation made in favour of the petitioner is in any way wrong or irregular. Therefore, Exhibit P2 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the arrears of salary W.P.(C) No.5463/2006 3 if any based on Exhibit P1 and pensionary benefits that too on the basis of Exhibit P1. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp