IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6695 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYASREE.J.R., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SREEKUMAR, KALKI BHAVAN, VAVAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPILLY P.O., KOLLAM, NOW WORKING AS RECEPTIONIST GRADE-1, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL & REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE (KSAVRC), HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SHRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SHRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 001. 2. CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, KSAVRC, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 013. 3. KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL & REPLROGRATPHIC CENTRE, (KSAVRC), VATTIYOORKAVU COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-PIN- 695 013. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R2 & R3 BY ADVS.SHRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC, K.S.A.V.R.C SHRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KRK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 6695 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Receptionist Grade-I in the 3rd respondent's service. The governing body of the 3rd respondent took a decision on 02.02.2011 to upgrade the post of Receptionist to Receptionist Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs.4000 - 6090. But that decision has not been implemented yet. The petitioner later came to understand that, similar decision in favour of another category taken along with the decision to upgrade the post of Receptionist has already been implemented as evidenced by Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that non-implementation of the decision in respect of the post of Receptionist is discriminatory. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 submits that it was because of financial stringency that decision was not implemented. The counsel for the respondent further submits that no promotion policy has also been finalised in respect thereof. I am of opinion that if the reasons put forward by the W.P.(C)No. 6695 of 2011 -2- respondents 2 and 3 were genuine, the respondents 2 & 3 should not have implemented the other decision also. Such reasons should apply uniformly to all the decisions, taken by the Board in respect of all the posts. In fact from Ext.P4 it is seen that, another decision taken in the same governing body meeting in respect of another post was implemented. Therefore such a decision to postpone implementation of the decision in respect of the post of Receptionist alone would be discriminatory. The petitioner has filed Ext.P5 in respect thereof before the 3rd respondent. In the above circumstances, I direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the findings entered as above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/