IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 3295 of 2007(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.V.JOHN KUTTY, LABORATORY ASSISTANT, CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. R3 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.3295/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(P)NO.575/85/FIN. DATED 16/10/1985. P1(a):COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/11/1986. P2: COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/06/1995. P3: COPY OF THE MODIFICATION ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(P) NO.817/95(58) FIN, DATED 14/11/1995. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 17/09/99. P4(a):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-364/2000/K.DIS. DATED 05/02/2000. P5: COPY OF THE 1197 PAY REVISION ORDER DATED 25/11/1998. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, RETURNING THE PROPOSAL DATED 19/08/2006. P6(a):COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 13/10/2006. P6(b):COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/11/2006. P7: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 19/02/1999. P7(a):COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATGED 06/11/1992. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION DATED 05/12/2006. P9: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.1041/79(142)/FIN. DATED 27/11/79. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 3295 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as a Lab Assistant in an aided college. He entered service as Sweeper (Last Grade) with effect from 08.11.1974. In accordance with the pay revision orders, on completion of 10 years' service the petitioner was granted the first higher grade with effect from 16.09.1985. Subsequently the 2nd higher grade was also granted on completion of 20 years with effect from 08.11.1994. The petitioner filed a complaint regarding non- sanction of the 3rd higher grade on completion of 23 years with effect from 01.11.1998. The proposal for the 3rd higher grade was returned by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education by Ext.P6 holding that the grant of 2nd higher grade itself was not in order, directing cancellation of the same. This was followed by Ext.P6 (b) wherein the grant of 1st higher grade was also found to be irregular. The W.P.(C)No. 3295 of 2007 -2- petitioner submits that Exts. P6 & P6(b) were issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since Exts.P6 & Ext.P6 (b) entails civil consequences to the petitioner the same ought not to have been issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Exhibits P6 and P6(b); (ii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from implementing Exhibits P6 and P 6 (b); (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 4th and 5th respondents to withdraw Exhibits P6 and P6 (b) and to grant 3rd H.G. with effect from 1.11.1998 as per proposed by the principal”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. There is nothing on record to show that before issuing Exts. P6 & P6 (b) the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of being heard. Insofar as as a result there would be reduction in pay and retirement benefits, the said action could not have been validly taken without affording an W.P.(C)No. 3295 of 2007 -3- opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore Exts. P6 & P6 (b) are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly they are quashed. However I make it clear that it would be open to the 5th respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/