IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 1944 of 2007(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.24719/2001 Dated 11/12/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE OP --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE OP --------------------------------------------------------- MARY.K. ABRAHAM, RETD.HEADMISTRESS, VETTATH PUTHENVEEDU, ELANJIMEL P.O. CHENGANNUR- 689 511. BY ADV. SMT. V.P. SEEMANTHINI (SR) ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNA KUMARI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1944 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J, The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. First respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The respondent filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P7, P8 and P9 official communications, which pointed out that the fixation of her pay made as per Ext.P5 is not correct. She also challenges Exts.P14 and P15 communications rejecting her representations against Exts.P7, P8 and P9. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent-writ petitioner commenced service as Lower Primary School Assistant in C.M.S. L.P.School, Mullackal in 1966. She has continuous service from 1968. She was promoted as Headmistress on 1.4.1992, while she was working as LPSA Senior Grade. While so, pay revision order, attempting to bring parity with the salary drawn by WA. 1944/2007. 2 Central Government employees was issued by the Government, which came into force from 1.3.1992. Since her turn arose as Headmistress from 1.4.1992, as mentioned earlier, she was promoted with effect from that date by the Manager. The pay revision order was issued only in September, 1993, but it was given effect from 1.3.1992. As on that date, the respondent- petitioner was a Senior Grade LPSA. Before the pay revision orders were issued, she opted to come over to Headmistress's scale from 1.4.1992 and her salary was fixed accordingly. When the pay was revised, she got a chance to opt to come over the new scale of Senior Grade LPSA, which post she was holding as on 1.3.1992. She exercised that option and decided to come over to the revised scale of pay of Senior Grade on 1.7.1992. In view of that position her earlier option before the issuance of the pay revision order to come over to Headmistress's scale from 1.4.1992 became meaningless. Thereafter, with effect from 1.7.1992 she was granted Selection Grade, which is the third higher grade granted to primary school teachers. With effect from the said date WA. 1944/2007. 3 she was brought into the scale of Headmistress also. When her salary was fixed as per Ext.P5, she was given protection of the increment rate she was drawing in the pre-revised scale of Headmistress. After the revision, which came into force from 1.3.1992, the rate of increment of Headmistress at the stage where the respondent-petitioner was drawing salary was lower when compared to the increment rate at the corresponding stage in the pre-revised scale. The service records of the respondent-petitioner were examined by the Accountant General while considering her pensionary claims. It was noticed that she was not entitled to get the protection of increment as granted under Ext.P5. The objections concerning the same are contained in Exts.P7, P8 and P9. The respondent-petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal before the Government. But her appeal was rejected by Ext.P14. An earlier representation pending before the Government was also rejected by Ext.P15. Challenging Exts.P7, P8, P9, P14 and P15, the writ petition was filed. WA. 1944/2007. 4 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition filed separate counter affidavits resisting the prayers in the writ petition. Respondent-petitioner filed a detailed reply affidavit. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 4. We heard learned counsel on both sides taking considerable time. If the respondent-petitioner, who was promoted as Headmistress on 1.4.1992 continued to be in that post for the rest of her service, she could have claimed the rate of increment of the pre-revised scale, as the rate of increment in the pre-revised scale and the revised scale was different. The rate of increment in the revised scale of pay was disadvantageous to her and therefore she was entitled to protection of increment rate. In this case, the petitioner decided to come over to the revised scale of Senior Grade with effect from 1.7.1992. With effect from that date, she was promoted as Selection Grade LPSA and from that post she was promoted as Headmistress. Since the scale of pay of Selection Grade LPSA and that of Headmistress is one and the same after the WA. 1944/2007. 5 pay revision, by virtue of the promotion to the post of Headmistress no loss was caused to her arising from diminished rate of increment. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for protection of increment rate could not have been granted. Therefore, we find that the decision of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. Accordingly the judgment under appeal is reversed and the writ petition is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.