IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 613 of 2005(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- S.K. ASOKAN, SENIOR MANAGER, MANACAUD BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, SRI.EBY GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, `BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, `BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, `BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SMT.PRIYA MAHESH, SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.613/2005-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 06/12/1999. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO.529/2000 DTD. 19/10/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 15/02/2002. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 03/06/2002. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/01/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. DTD. 11/05/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.26282/2004 DTD. 27/09/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 01/12/2004. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE R.1. DTD. 13/12/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 613 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. The petitioner was senior to Sri.O.Kasim Pillai and Smt.N.R.Kamala Devi in service. But the petitioner was drawing lesser pay than Sri.O.Kasim Pillai. Smt.Kamala Devi, who was also senior to Sri.Kasim Pillai, but was drawing lesser pay than him, approached this Court by filing O.P.No.16391/1994 contending that her pay should be stepped up on par with that of Sri.O.Kasim Pillai. She lost before the Single Judge. She filed an appeal, W.A.No.529/2000, in which, Ext.P2 judgment was passed, the operative portion of which reads thus: “10. Therefore, we are inclined to allow this Appeal. The impugned orders are quashed. The appellant is entitled to have her salary stepped up to that of her Junior Mr.Kasim Pillai with effect from the date he started drawing higher salary than her. She will be entitled to all consequential benefits notionally without arrears. The refixation of pay shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” (underlining supplied) 10 years after Smt.Kamala Devi approached this Court and three years after Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner suddenly woke up from slumber and filed W.P.(C).No.26282/2004 contending that the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief like Smt.Kamala Devi as per Ext.P2 judgment. This Court passed Ext.P7 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in that regard and to pass w.p.c.613/05 2 orders. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P9 order has been passed conceding the request of the petitioner for stepping up of pay on par with that of Sri.O.Kasim Pillai. But, by Ext.P9 order, the same was granted notionally and with monetary benefits prospectively. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order to the extent it denies monetary benefits of the refixation of pay. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioner is over-ambitious. Smt.Kamala Devi came before this Court as early as in 1994 and ultimately got Ext.P2 judgment in 2001. The petitioner filed writ petition only in 2004 claiming benefits similar to Ext.P2 judgment. The benefits granted to Smt.Kamala Devi have been extracted by me hereinbefore. Therein it is specifically stated that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits notionally without arrears. I am of opinion that the petitioner cannot aspire for anything better than what Smt.Kamala Devi got in Ext.P2 judgment. That is why I said that the petitioner is over-ambitious. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.613/05 3