IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11130 of 2006(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MAHESH KUMAR.K.T, S/O.C.P.KUNHIKANNAN, B.COMPANY, ARMED RESERVE, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5647. 2. RAJESH.K, S/O.P.KUNHIRAMAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5622. 3. RAJU.P.V, S/O.A.C.KUNHIRAMAN, C.COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5616. 4. O.SURENDRAN, S/O.P.GOVINDAN, A.COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5649. 5. PRASAD.N.K, S/O.T.KUNHIKANNAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5642. 6. BABU.A, S/O.P.KOTTUR, A-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5620. 7. MANOJ.M, S/O.PADMANABHAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5619. 8. SHAJU.K.K, S/O.GOPALAKURUP, B-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5618. 9. PRADEEPAN.K, S/O.RAMUNNI, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5654. 10. SAJESH.G, B-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5615. 11. AJESH JAYAN, S/O.STALIN, A-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5608. 12. C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5648. DCS WP(C).No. 11130 of 2006(Y) 13. JAYAKUMAR,S/O.P.P.KUNHIRAMAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, P.C.NO.5610. 14. MANOJKUMAR.M, S/O.K.ACHUTHAN, B-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5639. 15. MAHESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, A-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5655. 16. SHAJI.C, S/O.ACHUTHAN, C-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5613. 17. VINOD.E.K, S/O.V.P.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, B-COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, KANNUR, P.C.NO.5644. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P.BATTALIAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARGOD. 6. THE COMMANDANT, KAP IV, OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, KAP IV, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI. NOBLE MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/ 12 /2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS WP(C).No. 11130 of 2006(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT P2 :- COPY OF B.O. NO. 522/2004 KAP 4 P3 :- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.01.2005 P4 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2005 P5 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2005 P6 :- COPY OF THE B.O. A4 - 18790/04 KAP 4 DT. 10.2004 P7 :- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 05.11.2005 P8 :- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 06.01.2005 P9 :- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 07.01.2005 P10:- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 15.05.2004 P11:- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 11.01.2005 P12:- COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 18.02.2005 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.11130 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Police Constables in the Police Department of the Government of Kerala. They were earlier promoted as Havildars. But on account of administrative exigencies they had to be reverted as Police Constables. Consequently their pay also had to be refixed in the scale of pay applicable to Police Constables. The petitioners submit that, that is unjust and illegal. According to them, when reversions are made for administrative exigencies the pay should not be reduced and the pay the petitioners were drawing in the promoted posts should be protected on reversion. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners at the rate and scale at which the salary was paid to them while they were working as Havildars; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to scale up the pay due to the petitioners to that drawn by the petitioners while they were holding the post of W.P.(C)No.11130 of 2006 -2- Havildars; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from collecting any amount from the petitioners;“ 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The petitioners are not challenging reversion as such. Whether it is for administrative exigencies or by way of punishment or for any other reason, once a person is reverted, the same carries with it the consequences of pay being refixed in the scale of pay applicable to the post to which he is reverted. For example, when a person who has been promoted had to be reverted on account of a person on long leave rejoining duty, then naturally the pay of the person who is reverted has to be refixed in the lower scale of pay. Thus a person who has been reverted to a lower post cannot as of right claim that his pay in the promoted post should be protected after reversion. Of course, the petitioners would state in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that some others have been given the benefit of protection W.P.(C)No.11130 of 2006 -3- of pay. But the petitioners have not produced any material in support thereof. Even if the same is correct, that is also against law and the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the same. As such, I am not inclined to accept the said contention also. The normal rule is that reversion carries with it the consequences of change of scale of pay as well as reduction in pay. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/