IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 25944 of 2002(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.C.MICHAEL, RTD, 1ST GRADE SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), NH NO.III, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW VALSALAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NH NO.III, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 25944 of 2002(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 515/85/FIN DATED 16.9.1995. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY FO THE G.O.(P) NO. 480/87/FIN. DATED 1.11.1989. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THIS G.O.(P) NO. 930/93 (2)/ FIN. DATED 8.12.1993. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 952/95/(63)/FIN. DATED 9.6.1995. EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SY. A2-14996/98/K.DIS.DATED 1.8.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SURVEY A3-13750/94 DATED 7.10.1994 SENT BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE. EXT.P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 27977/SPL.PRC/90/FIN. DATED 14.8.1990 ISSUED BY FINANCE (SPL. PRC) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B-107/2001 DATED 3.7.2002 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P. No. 25944 of 2002 ................................................. Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an employee of the Government of Kerala who retired from the survey and land records department of the Government. The issue canvased in the original petition is as to the eligibility of the petitioner for 25 years' time bound higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post. On the ground that the petitioner was not qualified for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant, he is not entitled to 25 years' higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post of Technical Assistant, which had already been given to him, the respondents took steps to revise the pay of the petitioner and to recover the excess pay drawn by the petitioner. Exactly identical issue has been considered by a learned Judge of this court in W.P(C) No. 7407 of 2006 and connected cases, by judgment dated 24.9.2009. By that judgment, the learned judge disposed of those writ petitions with the following directions in paragraph 42 of the judgment. “42. In view of the elaborate discussion that I have undertaken, I consider it appropriate to encapsulate my conclusions, as hereunder: O.P. No. 25944 of 2002 -2- (1) The petitioners, who were not qualified to be appointed to the post of Technical Assistant, coming within the purview of the Special Rules for Kerala State (Survey and Land Records), were not entitled to be granted third time bound higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to a Technical Assistant, on completion of 25 years of service. (2) The petitioners were entitled to third time bound higher grade on completion of 25 years of service in the scale of pay immediately above the scale of pay as fixed in the revised orders, which is in consonance with Clause 3(b)(vii) of G.O.(P) No. 930/93. (3) The revision of the scale of pay and consequent revision of the pension being drawn by the petitioners as effected in the orders impugned in the present cases are upheld, subject to the directions issued hereunder: (a) The respondents are restrained from effecting recovery of any amounts, consequent upon the impugned re-fixation of pay and revision of pension, effected in the case of these petitioners till and inclusive of the date of this judgment. (b) The petitioners, in each one of these cases, may file a representation before the Government within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, invoking Rule 7 of Part I of the KSR, and request the Government to exempt them from the re- fixation of pay and consequent revision of their pension and also to see that the pension originally fixed in each of their cases is continued. (c) The Government shall consider the representations filed by the petitioners sympathetically and in the light of the observations contained in this O.P. No. 25944 of 2002 -3- judgment on humanitarian considerations and take a decision as early as possible. (d) It is made clear that the Government will be entitled to indicate, if they decide to accept the case of the petitioners, that the Government's decision need not be treated as a precedent in any other case. (f) The interim order in each one of these cases will continue to operate, till a decision is taken by the Government on the representations filed by the petitioners as aforementioned. (g) But, it is made clear that recovery for the period, subsequent to the date of this judgment, will abide by the decision to be taken by the Government as aforementioned.” 2. Therefore I am of opinion that the petitioner should also be extended the benefit of the very same directions. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with the following directions: 3. Petitioner shall file an appropriate representation in the matter to the 1st respondent within one month from today. The Government shall consider the same in accordance with the findings and directions in the judgment dated 24.9.2009 in W.P(C) No. 7404 of 2006 and connected cases and pass appropriate orders in the petitioner's case also. The same shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of the O.P. No. 25944 of 2002 -4- representation which representation shall be accompanied by a copy of this judgment. In accordance with orders to be passed, the retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within a further period of one month therefrom. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs