IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34886 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MATHEW.M.M., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.D.MATHEW, MUTHANATTU HOUSE, R.P.C.P.O., MUNDAKAYAM (H.S.A-MATHS, ST.MARY'S H.S., MARYKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.34886/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DT.1.6.04. EXT.P2: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION. EXT.P3: COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.B2/9267/06/K.DIS. DT.15.9.06. EXT.P4: COPY OF GO(MS)NO.47/71/G.EDN. DT.TVM 21/4/71. EXT.P5: COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2008(3)KLT 188. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34886 Of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the audit objection raised as per Exhibit P2. It is pointed out that the same cannot be sustainable in the light of various decisions of this Court. 2. The petitioner is working as High School Assistant at St.Mary's High School, Marykulam. He has continuous service from 12.6.1989 onwards. Before starting his continuous service, he has got three years of broken service from 31.2.1985 to 31.3.1989. The said period has been counted for granting four increments in the 2004 pay revision on 1.7.2004. This fixation was objected to in the audit as per Exhibit P2. 3. A reading of Exhibit P2 shows that the objection is that the broken service prior to 1.7.1988 in different time of scales of pay do not count for increment and the same will not count for any service weightage. Accordingly pay fixation is sought to be modified. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that W.P.(C)No.34886/08 -2- the said objection cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hussain v. Kerala Water Authority (1996(2) KLT 555). The view taken by the Division Bench therein is that by the revision of pay scales identity of scale of pay will not be lost. This Court in W.P.(C) No.32966/2008 considered the very same issue and in the light of the decision of the Division Bench similar audit objection was set aside. 5. The dictum laid down by the Division Bench in the above decision reads as follows: “By the revision of pay scales the identity of the scale of pay will not be lost. Entire provisional service of the regularised employees should be treated as officiating service and they are entitled to treat this period for the purpose of increments.” In the light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition as the only objection in Exhibit P2 is that the broken periods of service is in different time scale of pay. The same cannot be sustained. Therefore Exhibit P2 is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn