IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 26501 of 2002(E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.SOMAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.G.SANKU PILLAI, RETD, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER (PHYSICS), MMNSS COLLEGE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT "SREERANGAM", NEERAVIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) MR.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EUDCATION, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 26501 of 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.45001 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.26501 OF 2002 CLOSED. 1.4.2009 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF GOVERNEMNT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.110/2000 H.EDN. DATED 4.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-7213/01 DATED 30.6.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.13153/C3/2001/H.EDN. DTD 7.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT OF KERALA ADDRESSED TO THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL & THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.1.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.4.2002 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3/3780/02 DATED 22.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.44/2001/H.EDN. DATED 29.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 26501 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Lecturer (Selection Grade) in an aided College. He retired on superannuation with effect from 30.6.2002. Prior to his retirement, he claims to have become entitled to fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay applicable to Lecturers (Selection Grade) as granted by G.O.(P) No.110/2000/HED dated 4.7.2000. In the same, it was stated that while coming over the revised scale of pay as on 1.1.1996, the Lecturers would be entitled to one increment in the pre- revised scale of pay or the revised scale of pay. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay has been revised in the new scale of pay of Rs.15,360/- granting one increment and fixing his pay as Rs.15,780/- adding one increment of Rs.420/- on 1.1.1997, 1.1.1998, 1.1.1999, 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001. This was objected to by the 2nd respondent apparently relying on G.O.(P) No.44/01/H.Edn. dated 29.3.2001. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing O.P.No.8541/2001, in which this O.P.NO.26501 2 Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. However, by Ext.P6 communication, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that the matter is under correspondence with the Government and a final decision can be taken only after getting clarification from the Government. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.p6 & Clause 2 (2) of Ext.P7 to the extent it prohibits the grant of increment due to petitioner as on 1.1.96 in the light of Exts.P1 G.O. and Ext.P3 Clarification. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pass expeditious orders releasing the annual increment due to petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.96 in the revised scale of pay and to grant his last increment due on 1.1.2002 thereon, forthwith. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits due to petitioner on the basis of his last pay legally due to him, forthwith”. 2. An exactly identical question came up for consideration by another learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.NO.26501 3 O.P.Nos.1558, 17578, 9306, 9914 & W.P.(C)No.23868/2003. In the same, the learned Single Judge came to the following conclusions, which is in favour of similarly placed teachers: “9. The conclusions of the aforesaid discussions are: (1) All the petitioners drew their basic pay at the 10th to 13th stages in the pre-revised scales as on 1-1-1996 and are therefore entitled to be granted new pay of Rs.15,360/- as on 1-1- 1996. (2) All of the petitioners had an increment falling due in their favour as on 1-1-1996 and are therefore entitled, in terms of Note 1 of 2000 G.O., to exercise the option to draw an increment in the existing scale or the revised scale. Such earning and drawal of increment is not, in any manner, deprived by the third among the clauses available after ready reckoner or the fixation of the new pay at Rs.15,360/-. The benefit of that increment, as on 1-1-1996, will be in addition to the new pay as on 1-1-1996. (3) In terms of Note 4 of the 2000 G.O., every senior is entitled to have the fixation stepped up at par with that earned by a junior in the pay fixation. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions, reverting to the facts of these cases, the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003 were granted the benefit of the increment on the basis of options exercised by them. Such decision was also dependent on the earlier decisions granting benefits to juniors on O.P.NO.26501 4 the basis of such revisions in favour of the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003. The petitioners in the other writ petitions moved for relief in terms of Note 4 to the 2000 G.O. that request was rejected by taking the view that the grant made in favour of the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003 were erroneous and the benefit of erroneous decision cannot be extended to the other parties. The resultant situation was that the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003 were notified recalling the benefits earned on account of the fixation as above. 11. O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003 are filed challenging the decision recalling the benefits already granted and the other writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to extend to them also the benefits granted to the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003. 12. Applying the conclusions arrived at in paragraph No.9 above, all these writ petitions are entitled to succeed to the extent reliefs are granted hereunder: (1) The recoveries ordered against the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC 17578 of 2003 and the decisions forming the basis of such recoveries are quashed. (2) The petitioners in WPC No. 23868 of 2003, O.P.No.9306 of 2003 and O.P.No.9914 of 2003 are also entitled to all benefits as are extended to the petitioners in O.P.No.1558 of 2003 and WPC No.17578 of 2003. (3) It is clarified that their earning of increment would be applied at the pre- O.P.NO.26501 5 revised scale or the revised scales depending upon their option in accordance with Note 1 to the 2000 G.O. (4) The declarations and directions contained in this judgment shall be given effect to and financial benefits, if any, will be released to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs”. Therefore, following that judgment, this original petition is allowed. It is declared that granting of one increment as on 1.1.1996 to the petitioner is in order. The petitioner’s pay shall be regularized accordingly and his retirement benefits shall be disbursed taking into account such regularization. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears of retirement benefits due to the petitioner disbursed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.NO.26501 6