IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 29258 of 2002(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JACOB P.PHILIP, S/O.P.V.PHILIP, AGED 58 YEARS, JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (RETD), KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE, THOTTUMUKHAM P.O., ALUVA-5.. 2. C.J.GEORGE, S/O.C.V.JOSEPH AGED 51 YEARS, PY.GENERAL MANAGER(M), KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, RESIDING AT 30/1609 A1, CHITTILAPPALLY KANNOTH, NANAYARA ASSAM ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-10. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SREERAJ SRI.HARIRAJ SMT.T.M.RESHMY SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAVARA, KOLLAM- 691 583. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.29258/2002 ORDER ON CMP NOS.49658/2002 & 4581/2003 IN OP NO.29258/2002 DISMISSED. 23/10/2009 SD/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF GO MS NO.29/93/ID DATED 8/3/1993 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/93/11033 DATED 27/10/1993. P3 : COPY OF LETTER NO.40490/H3/93/ID DATED 11/1/94 ISSUED BY R1. P4 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/95 DATED 2/5/95 SUBMITTED BY R2. P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.19536/H3/96/ID DATED 17/10/96 ISSUED BY R1. R6 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/96 DATED 25/10/1996 SUBMITTED BY R2 TO R1. P7 : COPY OF ORDER NO.37798/H3/96/ID DATED 14/2/97 ISSUED BY R1. P8 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/97 DATED 30/7/97 ISSUED BY R2. P9 : COPY OF GO(MS) NO.89/99/ID DATED 9/6/99. P10 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/99 DATED 3/9/99 SUBMITTED BY R2. P11 : COPY OF LETTER NO.28036/H3/99/ID DATED 17/12/99 ISSUED BY R1. P12 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/99 DATED 30/12/99 SUBMITTED BY R2. P13 : COPY OF LETTER NO.927/H3/2000/ID DATED 4/2/2000 ISSUED BY R1. P14 : COPY OF LETTER NO.TP/PD/WA-23/00 DATED 01/03/2001 SUBMITTED BY R2. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P. No.29258 of 2002 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were Officers working under the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., a Government of Kerala undertaking. They are seeking to quash Exts.P3, P5, P7, P11 & P13 and a direction to grant stagnation increment to the petitioners with effect from 01/03/1992 as applicable to Government Servants, along with interest is also sought for. 2. By Ext.P1 order issued on 08/03/1993, the system of payment of stagnation increment prevailing in the Government was extended to the employees of the Company. Subsequently, by order dated 25/09/1993, the Government removed the upper limit in the payment of stagnation increment, in so far as the Government employees are concerned. On the issuance of the Government order, the Company requested for sanction of the benefit of the Government Order to its employees also. However, that was rejected by the Government by Ext.P3 dated 11/01/1994. O.P.No.29258/2002 -2- Subsequently, the benefit of the Government Order was extended to the employees of some other Government Companies. Then again the Company reiterated its request. That was also rejected by Ext.P5 dated 17/10/1996. Further request was also rejected by Ext.P7. 3. While so, a single member commission was appointed to recommend revision of pay and allowances of the employees of the Company. Accordingly, a report was submitted, which included a recommendation to extend benefits similar to the benefits contained in Government Order dated 25/09/1993 to the employees of the Company as well. Once the report was received, anticipating approval of the Government, the Company extended the benefit as contained in the report with effect from 01/01/1995. Long thereafter, by Ext.P9 order dated 09/06/1999, the Government accepted the single member commission report, subject to the modifications mentioned in Ext.P9 with effect from 01/01/1995. On a perusal of Ext.P9 shows that the Government did not suggest any modification in so far as the stagnation increment is concerned. O.P.No.29258/2002 -3- 4. After Ext.P9 was issued, the Company sought ratification of the Government for the payment it made from 01/01/1995 onwards. But, however, that was rejected by Ext.P11 Government Order dated 17/12/1999 without giving any reason whatsoever. The request was reiterated by the Company in Ext.P12, which again was rejected by Ext.P13 dated 04/02/2000. It is at that stage, anticipating recovery of the amounts already paid, this original petition is filed. 5. Although from the prayers in the original petition, it can be seen that the petitioners are claiming the benefit with effect from 01/03/1992, being a Government Company payment can be made, only if the Government gives approval for payment. As already stated, the single member commission appointed for making recommendation on the revision of pay scales, made a recommendation for payment of stagnation increment without upper limit. This was accepted by the Government as per Ext.P9 only with effect from 01-01-1995. If that be so, in the absence of any Government approval for the period prior to 01/01/1995, the petitioners cannot claim any payment for the said period. O.P.No.29258/2002 -4- 6. In so far as Exts.P11 & P13, where the Government rejected the Company's request for ratifying the payment already made by it for the period from 01/01/1995 is concerned, in my view, such a ratification was unnecessary for the reason that the Government had already accepted the recommendation of the Commission with effect from 1995 by Ext.P9. Such an approval should take effect from the period subsequent to 01/01/1995. Therefore, the ratification sought for by the Company was unnecessary and if so, Exts.P11 & P13 are no consequence, and no recovery can be effected on that basis. Therefore, this original petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P11 & P13 and directing the Company to regularise the payment already made, and if any consequential benefit is withheld in view of the uncertainly that was prevailing, such benefits should also be released to the petitioners. This original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg