IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34288 of 2004(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.P. KAMALAKSHY, SENIOR CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT (RETD.), ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH, SMT.M.SONA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B. VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, K.S.E.B., VAIDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KANNUR-2. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34288/2004-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER B.O.NO.460/01 AS PS1/DPR/2000 DATED 23/02/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DATED 01/07/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/04/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/12/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.1-10445/03 DATED 16/03/2004. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB8/493/2001 DATED 22/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.34288 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He joined service on 08.06.1973 as an L.D. Typist. He was promoted as Stenographer Grade II on 09.06.1980. He was given the first higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Stenographer Grade I with effect from 10.06.1998. He was given the second higher grade on 10.06.1998. After the second higher grade was sanctioned, a pay revision was effected for employees of the Board with effect from 01.07.1998. Ext.P1 is the pay revision order. Clause 7 of the said order provides thus: “(7) In case where a senior promoted to higher post/granted grade promotion before 01.07.1998 draws lesser pay in the revised scale than his junior promoted to the higher post/granted grade promotion after the said date, the pay of the senior officer will be stepped up to the level of the pay of the junior with effect from the date on which the junior draws more pay provided that: (i) The senior and the junior officers should belong to the same category and should have been promoted to the same category of post. W.P.(C)No.34288 of 2004 -2- (ii) The pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. (iii) The senior at the time of promotion/grade promotion has been drawing equal or more pay than the junior. (iv) The anomaly would have arisen directly as a result of the introduction of the revised scale of pay.” 2. After the pay revision came into force, one Sri. E.K. Ravindran who was junior to the petitioner was given second higher grade on 09.12.1998. Since that second higher grade given to the junior was in the revised scale of pay, the revised pay of the said junior happened to be more than that of the petitioner. Therefore, in accordance with Clause 7 of Ext.P1, the petitioner claimed fixation of pay on par with that of the junior with effect from the date when the junior started drawing the higher grade. The same was rejected by Ext.P7 order, on the ground that the said anomaly did not arise as a result of introduction of the revised scale of pay but because of grant of higher grade, which is not contemplated by Clause 7. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.34288 of 2004 -3- “1) A writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and P7 and quash the same. 2) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order commanding the 1st respondent to step-up the pay of the petitioner to Rs.11,900/- as on 9.12.98 and to Rs.12,390/- as on 1.8.99 on par with that of the Jr. Sri. Ravindran. 3) A direction to the respondents to disburse the arrears of the pay and allowances to the petitioner from 9.12.98 on the basis of the refixed to pay. 4) The direction to the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay arrived at consequent on the step-up and disburse the arrears of the pension DCRG and commuted value of pension of the petitioner. 5) To grant cost. 3. Although no counter affidavit has been filed the learned standing counsel for the Board argues in support of the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The petitioner points out that, a similarly placed person was granted similar benefits which the petitioner seeks in this writ petition by Ext.P8 order. Therefore the contention that, the difference in pay between the petitioner and his junior did not arise from the revision of W.P.(C)No.34288 of 2004 -4- scale of pay is not correct. The learned counsel for the Board points out that, during the previous pay fixation the pay of the petitioner as well as that of his junior was equated and therefore as on 01.07.1998 their pay was equal. I am of opinion that, that does not make any difference if his junior got higher grade after 01.07.1998 and got a higher pay than that of the petitioner which is the exactly position covered by Clause 7. Admittedly, the petitioner got second higher grade prior to 01.07.1998 which is in the pre-revised scale of pay. The junior got the higher grade after 01.07.1998 on 09.12.1998 and therefore he got the higher grade in the revised scale of pay as a result of which the pay of the junior became higher than that of the petitioner. That is exactly the situation covered by Clause 7. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Clause 7. I am not inclined to agree with the respondents that the difference in pay between the petitioner and the junior occurred not on account of revision of scale of pay. In fact it is exactly because of W.P.(C)No.34288 of 2004 -5- revision of scale of pay that the anomaly has arisen, for rectifying which only Clause 7 has been included in Ext.P1. It is also pertinent to note that, in a similar case by Ext.P8 another person was given that benefit also. Therefore Ext.P7 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for stepping up of pay on par with that of his junior namely Sri. E.K. Ravindran with effect from 09.12.1998. Orders shall be passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that, the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall also be proportionately revised and arrears disbursed within the above said period. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/