IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18466 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- R. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AYIRATHUVILA, CHATHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANGARATHOOR P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC,CO.OP ACADEMY-PRO FOR R1,2 SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18466/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.52/99/CO-OP. DT 26.3.1999. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO.66/01/H.EDN. DT 18.6.2001. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.56/02/FIN. DT 16.1.2002. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-427/2002/CAPE/600 DT 1.8.2002. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.86/06/FIN. DT 23.2.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-46/2000/CAPE/3720 DT 30.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACC-2/2003/CAPE DT 7.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18466 OF 2007 (W) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's claim is for dearness allowance and other beneifts due for the period of service rendered by him under the 1st respondent for the period from 13/8/02 to 31/5/2003. 2. Facts of the case are that by Ext.P1, the 1st respondent established an Engineering College. Subsequently, the Government by Ext.P3 introduced economy measures, which interalia provided as per Clause 17 thereof that, “new recruits in Government service and PSUs/Autonomous institutions/statutory undertaking will be given only basic pay for the first two years of service”. 3. It is stated that subsequent to Ext.P3, by Ext.P4 order dated 1/8/02, 1st respondent appointed the petitioner as Lecturer in Mathematics on scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500. It was made clear that the petitioner will be paid only basic pay for two years from the date of joining duty. Accordingly, petitioner joined duty and continued in service till 31/5/2003 and got himself relieved thereafter to join new employment. Petitioner submits that the WPC 18466/07 :2 : benefits which were ordered to be withheld by Ext.P3 were restored by Ext.P5 Government Order. It is stated that acting upon Ext.P5, the 1st respondent also restored the benefits as can be seen from Exts.P7 and P8. Despite this, his benefits were not released and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, where they are disputing the liability and contends that Ext.P5 order referred to above was not adopted by them. It is stated that amounts due to the petitioner have all been paid and the petitioner is not entitled to any further payment. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 order appointing the petitioner shows that it was made clear in the order itself that the petitioner will be paid only basic pay for two years from the date of joining duty. The said provision was incorporated in Ext.P4 following Ext.P3 Government order. It is seen from Exts.P7 and P8 orders issued by the 1st respondent itself that w.e.f. 1/01/2001, employees were eligible for 43% DA with the arrears for the period from 1/7/2000 was ordered to be paid to the eligible employees in cash. It is also made clear that the payment was to be effected after 1/7/2003. Ext.P8 also makes it clear that the 1st WPC 18466/07 :3 : respondent itself has issued the said circular, according sanction for payment of DA, HRA and other allowances to eligible employees of the 1st respondent, who joined service after 16/1/2002. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P8 makes it clear that the eligible employees were restored the benefits which were withheld as in the case of the petitioner. 6. If the effect of Exts.P7 and P8 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is restoration of the benefits which were withheld as per Ext.P3, there is no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of the benefits which are otherwise due to him. The petitioner having joined the post pursuant to Ext.P4 on 13/8/2002 is a person coming within the scope of Exts.P7 and P8 and if that be so, he should be paid benefits which were withheld. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the amounts that are due to him and which were withheld in implementation of Ext.P3. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp