IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 859 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14999/2005 Dated 16/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHELEMBRA, P.O.CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. E.GANGADHARAN, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, ARALAM, P.O.VELIMANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. P.RAMUNNIKUTTY, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRURANGADI, P.O.THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. K.O.MATHEW, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT KRISHI BHAVAN, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O.VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. K.CHANDRA BHANU, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, K.B.KOLAYAD, KOLAYAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. P.V.CHANDRAN, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT KRISHI BHAVAN, DHARMADOM, P.O.PALAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. P.M.RAVINDRAN, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, PANOOR, P.O.ELANGODE KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. T.M.VASANTHA KUMARI, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, PARAPPANANGADI, P.O.NEDUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. A.CHITHRANGATHAN, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT, KRISHI BHAVAN, A.R.NAGAR, P.O.A.R,BAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9TH RESPONDENT STANDS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2011 IN IA.73 OF 2011. ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 859 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The appellants are before us aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No. 14999 of 2005 dated 16.12.2009. The appellants approached the learned Single Judge when they were refused grant of third higher grade as Agricultural Assistant Field Officers, i.e., after completion of 23 years. It is not in dispute that on an earlier occasion, the appellants were given higher grade pay by virtue of executive order on completion of 10 years as well as 18 years respectively. It is also not in dispute that such pay revision was done on completion of 10 years and also 18 years not by virtue of any Rule as such like stagnation, increment etc., but by executive orders. WA.859/10 2 3. Apparently, the present third higher grade is also based on Exhibit P1, an executive order No.G.O(P).No.3000/98/FIN dated 25.11.1998. As per this G.O, the benefit could be extended to the appellants only if they possess the test qualification, which is one of the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Agricultural Field Officer. Apparently, we are not concerned with the eligibility of the appellant for promotion to the post of Agricultural Field Officer, but only with regard to the hike in the pay on par with the Agricultural Field Officer on the ground that he has completed 23 years of service. 4. The learned Single Judge rejected the said relief sought by the appellants on the ground that the pay revision order imposes a condition, i.e., departmental test being passed by the appellants herein. Therefore, having not taken the test qualification, which is required for normal promotion to the said post, the appellants are not entitled for pay revision. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are protected by Rule 35 of the KS & SSR, a saving clause. According to him, when the Rules govern the grant of higher grades, the appellants must be given the higher grades irrespective of whether the test qualification is possessed by them or not. The very claim of higher grade for the WA.859/10 3 third time is not by virtue of any Rule like the appellants having any vested right as such, but it is by aforesaid G.O. When the appellants' right flows from the aforesaid G.O, one is expected to adhere to the procedure contemplated in the said G.O to get the benefit under the said G.O. Reading of Rule 35, we do not find that any contrary intention is expressed by this G.O, which is repugnant to the provisions under Rule 35 of Part II KS & SSR. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants based on the conditions incorporated in the G.O concerned to claim the benefit. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs