IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 W.A.No. 1989 of 2006 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14649/2005 Dated 19/09/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WP ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRATION OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N. MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP ------------------------- K.V.SUKUMARAN, DEPUTY REGISTRAR/PRINCIPAL CO-OPERATIVE TRAINING CENTRE, KARANI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No.1989 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The respondent/writ petitioner has worked in the Education Department as Storekeeper cum Clerk from 29.5.1976 to 22.4.1980. Thereafter, he resigned and joined the Department of Co-operation as Junior Co-operative Inspector. The Government introduced pay revision for the employees under it by Ext.P1 order dated 25.11.1998. The said Government Order provided for paying at least a minimum benefit of Rs.250/- as service weightage. The relevant clause reads as follows: “4. To the existing emoluments computed above shall be added an amount equal to 10% (Ten percent) of basic pay towards fitment benefit and another amount equivalent to 1% of basic pay, for W.A. No.1989 of 2006 - 2 - each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 20 completed years, towards weightage. If the amount computed as above falls short of Rs.250/- the fixation should be so made as to ensure that the employee gets a minimum benefit of Rs.250/- in basic pay. Note: (i) Service for the purpose of this rule means service including broken periods of service qualifying for normal increment in the Scales of Pay. Time spent on leave not counting for normal increment will not be reckoned.”. 3. The respondent claimed that he should be granted weightage taking into account the service rendered by him in the Education Department from 29.5.1976 to 22.4.1980. The Government rejected the claim by Ext.P4 communication dated 20.12.2000. According to the Government, since the service rendered by him in the Education Department is not reckoned for grant of increment in the Co-operative Department, he is not entitled to get weightage for the said service. Challenging the said order, the writ petition was filed. The Government resisted the prayer by filing a counter W.A. No.1989 of 2006 - 3 - affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: “3. It is submitted that as per Note (1) below Rule 4 to Annexure iii of G.O.(P) 3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998 (1997 Pay Revision Order), for reckoning qualifying service for weightage, service qualifying for normal increment alone will be counted. The petitioner had served in the Education Department for the period from 29.05.1976 to 22.04.1980, in the cadre of Store Keeper cum Clerk. It is seen that on 23.04.1980 he joined in the Co-operative Department as Junior Co-operative Inspector, after resigning from the Education Department on 22.04.1980. It may also be noted that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Education Department and Co-operative Department are not on identical categories. The post of the petitioner in the Education Department is Store Keeper cum Clerk. However, he joined service in the Co-operative Department as Junior Co-operative Inspector. His service in the Education Department from 29.05.1976 to 22.04.1980 was not reckoned for granting increments in the Co-operative Department as the same will not satisfy the conditions stipulated in Government decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I, K.S.R.. The continuous W.A. No.1989 of 2006 - 4 - service in the Co-operative Department reckoned for granting increment can only be counted for granting weightage as per the provisions contained in the 1997 Pay Revision Order. In these circumstances, the service rendered by the petitioner in the Education Department from 29.05.1976 to 22.04.1980 will not come under the purview of Note (1) below Rule 4 of Annexure III of Ext.P1 Government Order.”. But, overruling the stand of the Government, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that for weightage the service rendered in a different post with different scale of pay in another department can also be reckoned. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this writ appeal is filed. 4. We notice that the service rendered by the respondent in the Education Department was regular service based on his appointment pursuant to the advice of the P.S.C. The Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I, KSR, deals with provisional service followed by regular service with or without break. So, the Government have rejected the claim of the respondent relying on an irrelevant ground. So, his W.A. No.1989 of 2006 - 5 - claim is to be reconsidered in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 33, Part I, KSR, concerning counting of regular service in another department for the purpose of grant of increment. The resignation of the respondent in this case is only technical and the same should not be pressed into service as a ground to deny the benefits, having regard to the special facts of the case. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the Government to consider the claim of the respondent for weightage taking into account his service in the Education Department even though that service was not reckoned for increment. If it is found that the said service should have been reckoned for increment, the respondent shall be given weightage for the said service. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK.