IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 17119 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.S. JAYALESKHMY, FINANCIAL ASSISTANT, CHIFE ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-3. 2. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 &2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17119/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF the PAY REVISION ORDER ALONG WITH RELEVANT ANNEXURES. P2 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 16/07/2008. P3 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED ON 04/06/2009 GRANTING HIGHER GRADE. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER. P5 : COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL) TO THE SECRETARY OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 03/07/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17119 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is one of pay anomaly. The petitioner submits that she was working as a Divisional Accountant from 01/06/1986, and that she was promoted as a Financial Assistant with effect from 01/01/2006 in the scale of pay Rs.12250-19800. Her grievance is that subsequent to her promotion as Financial Assistant, by Ext.P3 order, some other employees, who are juniors to her in service and working as Divisional Accountants, were given higher scale of pay, and that they have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.12930-20250. As a result of this, even though senior and occupying a higher post, the petitioner is drawing a lower scale of pay. Aggrieved by this she has filed Ext.P4 representation to the Board, on which Ext.P5 recommendation has been made by the Chief Engineer as well. Therefore, as at present, what is required to be done is that the WP(C) No.17119/2009 -2- Board should consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P5. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P4, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 taking into account Ext.P5 as well. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg