IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6541 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. A. MOHANAN, ATHIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THIRURKKAD, MALAPPURAM (RETD.BLACK SMITH, M.S.P.RANGE WORKSHOP, MALAPPURAM). 2. C.K. KUMARAN, GOURI SADAN, AMBALAPPADY, MAKKARAPARAMBA, (RETD.UPHOLSTERER, M.S.P.RANGE WORKSHOP, MALAPPURAM). * ADDL. 3RD PETITIONER IMPLEADED ADDL. P3: P. GOURI, W/O.C.K.KUMARAN, GOURI SADAN, AMBALAPPADY, MAKKARAPARAMBA. * ADDL. 3RD PETITIONER IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/01/2009 IN I.A.89/2009. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDENT, MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 6541/2008-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/04/1992 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/09/1997 IN O.P. NO. 12711/92. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDR DATED 25/05/1998. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/08/1998 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/08/1998 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/11/2005 IN O.P. NO. 19144/98. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/06/2007 IN W.A. NO.2159/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2007 IN R.P. NO.649/2007 IN W.A. NO.2159/2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 13/12/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).6541/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners were working as Civil Technicians in the Northern Range Work Shop of the Malabar Special Police at Malappuram. The technical posts in M.S.P. consist of Civil Technicians and Executive Technicians. Earlier Civil Technicians were having higher scale of pay than the Executive Technicians, but parity between the two categories of Technicians were brought into force in 1978. In the 1983 Pay Revision, the Executive Technicians were given higher pay scale and this was objected to by the Civil Technicians. Their request for maintaining parity was rejected under Ext.P1. Ext.P1 was challenged by the petitioners and two others in O.P.No.12711/1992. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the said judgment, Ext.P2, read as follows:- As can be seen from the counter affidavit, out of the seven Civil Technicians, two had already retired. One incumbent has got the chance of promotion. Only the petitioners are remaining stagnated in the entry cadre. Thus, this group is a vanishing W.P.(C).6541/2008 2 group under these circumstances, it is only just and fair that the petitioners are also given the pay scale of the Executive Technicians. Though Exts.P3 and P4 proceed on the basis that the qualification of Executive Technician is S.S.L.C, the petitioners have specifically pointed out that there are Executive Technicians who do not have S.S.L.C qualification. The above specific averment has not been denied in the counter affidavit. No rule or order has been cited in support of the statement in Exts.P and P4 that Executive Technicians must possess S.S.L.C qualification. Therefore the reasoning stated in Exts.P3 and P4 is faulty and cannot be supported in law. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to the same scale of pay of Executive Technicians. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pass necessary orders granting the same scale of pay as that of the Executive Technicians to the petitioners. It is made clear that the implementation of the equal scale of pay to the petitioners is to take effect only from the date of filing of the original petition. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders in this respect as directed above W.P.(C).6541/2008 3 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. Direction in Ext.P2, for implementation of an equal scale of pay for the petitioners therein was given effect to from 5.7.1992, the date of filing of the original petition. 3. Taking note of the said direction in Ext.P2, Government proceeded to pass Ext.P3 order. Operative portion of the same read as follows:- Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to accord sanction to equate the pay of the petitioners (Civil technicians) with that of the technicians in the Executive wing and to revise the pay of the Civil technicians to the scale of pay of Rs.950- 1650 with effect from the date of filing of the O.P. ie. 5.7.1992 and to fix the pay equal to the Executive Wings.” 4. The implementation of Ext.P3 as it is, according to the petitioners, did, not only, not bring them any benefit but also resulted in a loss, as they had been granted a W.P.(C).6541/2008 4 time bound higher grade, in a scale of pay higher than 950-1650, which was the scale of pay applicable to an Executive Technician as on 5.7.1992 if the same is treated as the date of entry into the said post. Since the time bound higher grade which had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, resulted in them being fitted in a scale higher than the said scale of pay, they actually stood to lose the benefits which they were already enjoying by reason of what they call as a pedantic interpretation of the operative portion of Ext.P2 judgment. Petitioners along with another, challenged Ext.P3 order in O.P.19144/1998. The Original Petition was allowed and this Court held that what was intended in Ext.P2 judgment (Ext.P3 therein) was that the scale applicable to the Executive Technicians should be given to the Civil Technicians also, from the date of entry in the service. The financial benefits may be restricted to 5.7.1992. 5. State took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench as W.A.No.2159/2006, which was disposed of under Ext.P7 judgment, wherein the Government was directed to W.P.(C).6541/2008 5 examine the issue untrammelled by the judgment of the learned single Judge, as also Ext.P2 judgment. Later by Ext.P8 Review Petition, Division Bench clarified that the reference made to Ext.P2 judgment in Ext.P7 shall stand deleted. In other words, Ext.P2 judgment according to the Division Bench, should continue to apply to the parties thereto. 6. Government passed Ext.P9 order rejecting the request made by the petitioners and the same has been challenged in the writ petition. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Government supporting Ext.P9. 8. The directions in Ext.P2 judgment are to be considered in a reasonable and sensible manner. This Court declared that the Civil Technicians, who had approached this Court, were entitled to parity in scale of pay with that of Executive Technicians. The operative portion in the said declaration was directed to be given effect to from the date W.P.(C).6541/2008 6 of filing of the Original Petition. This obviously, would have been intended only to operate in relation to the monetary benefits that would accrue in favour of the beneficiaries while giving effect to the scale of pay applicable to the Executive Technicians. This Court intended that the monetary benefits accruing from the adoption of the same scale of pay for Civil Technicians, as that of Executive Technicians may be confined to the date on which the beneficiaries had approached this Court. The contra stand taken in Ext.P9 is unsustainable. 9. I also take note of the fact that even in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court had noted that the Civil Technicians in the Malabar Special Police is a vanishing category. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners alone would be the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 judgment. Further, petitioners alone have challenged Ext.P3 order and it is therefore, clear that the benefit of this judgment would be available only to the petitioners as no other person has come forward to challenge Ext.P3, after Ext.P9. W.P.(C).6541/2008 7 10. For all these reasons, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. It is declared that the first petitioner and the predecessor in interest of the third petitioner, Mr.C.K.Kumaran, now deceased, represented by the additional third petitioner are entitled to be given parity of scales of pay with that of Executive Technicians in the Malabar Special Police relatable to the entire service rendered by them. But the monetary benefits, consequential upon such parity in the scale of pay, shall be given to them only with effect from 5.7.1992 as already directed in Ext.P2 judgment. Consequential orders and the benefit accruing there from, shall be passed and disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs