IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3090 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VALSALA.T, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC), GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, KODUVALLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. HEADMASTER, GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, KODUVALLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 3090/2009-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ANNXURE-III OF G.O.(P)NO.600/93/FIN. DATED 25/09/1993. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FIXATION STATEMENT DATED 31/05/1994. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CIRCLAR NO.59151/12/2000/G.EDN. DATED 17/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/08/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 20914/03 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 24973/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.3090 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Muhammed Shameel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Ramani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Arabic) in the Government High School, Koduvalli. She entered service on 28.2.1989 and has continuous service since then. The pay and allowances of Government employees and aided school teachers were revised with effect from 1.3.1992 as per G.O.(P) No.600/93/Fin dated 25.9.1993. The said Government order inter alia stipulated that where the junior is drawing a higher pay, the pay of the senior shall be stepped up and equated with the pay of the junior and that the increment date of the senior shall also stand varied. 3. Sri. Jnanam, T.T. entered service on 20.6.1991 in the school where the petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Physical Science). She is admittedly junior to the petitioner. Following the 1992 pay revision, his pay was fixed at Rs.1,380/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1350- 2200 with effect from 1.6.1992. The petitioner would have come to that stage only on 1.3.1993, her next increment date. Therefore, as the WP(C) No.3090/09 -: 2 :- petitioner's junior started drawing higher pay with effect from 1.6.1992, the pay of the petitioner was stepped up applying the stipulation in G.O. (P) No.600/93/Fin. dated 25.9.1993. The fixation was made way back on 31.5.1994 and the petitioner started drawing higher pay with effect from 1.6.1992. 4. While matters stood thus, the Government issued Ext.P3 circular to the effect that stepping up of pay can be granted only if the junior is holding a post in the same category or same post. In other words the stand of the Government in Ext.P3 was that a H.S.A. (Arabic) cannot draw the salary of a H.S.A. (Physical Science) if the H.S.A. (Physical Science) is junior to him for the reason that they are not teachers in the same category or post. 5. The validity of Ext.P3 was the subject matter of a series of decisions of this Court. In Exts.P4 and P5 judgments this Court has taken the view that the stand taken in Ext.P3 is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. This Court held in the aforesaid judgments that audit objections based on Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. This Court quashed Ext.P3 and held that the fixation of pay made before Ext.P3 circular was issued cannot be upset. The issue raised in the case on hand is in my opinion, directly covered in favour of the petitioner by Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. Smt. T.B. Remani, the learned Government Pleader very fairly conceded that the issue raised in the case on hand is squarely covered by Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. On going through the pleadings and the WP(C) No.3090/09 -: 3 :- materials on record, it is evident that Ext.P6 has been issued relying on Ext.P3 circular. In the light of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court to which the State of Kerala is a party, Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow this Writ Petition, quash Ext.P6 and declare that fixation of pay made as per Ext.P2 shall not be disturbed except in implementation of the subsequent pay revision orders. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 30/3