IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18202 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.G.VINODKUMAR, SENIOR SANITARY CHEMIST(HG), QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-9 2. P.VINEETHA, SENIOR SANITARY CHEMIST(HG), QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT.N.S.REHNA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES (WSC) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM BY SC, KWA SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18202/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are now working as Senior Sanitary Chemists under the Kerala Water Authority. They were originally working under the Chief Engineer, IPD (Investigation, Protection and Development) Wing of the Water Authority and were allotted a special allowance under Ext.P1 order. Apparently, on the abolition of the post of Chief Engineer, IPD, the Quality Control Divisions were brought under the control of the respective Regional Chief Engineers. Petitioners submit that while they were working under the Regional Chief Engineers, the Resident Audit Officer raised objections regarding the admissibility of IPD/special allowance to the staff working under the Quality Control Divisions. They submit that as a matter of fact, they were doing the same job which they were doing while working under the Chief Engineer, IPD. By Ext.P3, the Managing Director of the Water Authority recommended that the special allowances granted to the petitioners to be continued and this was forwarded to the W.P.(C).18202/2008 2 Government and Government rejected vide Ext.P4 order. Consequently by Ext.P8, first respondent directed to recover the amount already paid to the petitioners. Petitioners preferred Ext.P9 representation, which though addressed to the Minister, is now stated to have been forwarded to the third respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority. 3. In my view, the Government should consider the case put forward by the petitioners, as evidenced by Ext.P9. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and then take a decision on the question of special allowances already drawn by the petitioners. Decision shall be taken, after hearing the petitioners, within a W.P.(C).18202/2008 3 period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Recovery pursuant to Ext.P8 shall stand stayed till the Government takes a decision. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs