IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32569 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M. ABDULLA, S/O. LATE ALIKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, MUNDODAN HOUSE, URANGATTIRI.P.O, MALAPPURAM, LAB. ASSISTANT (RETIRED), S.S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOORKANAD, ARECODE, MALAPPURAM. 2. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K. KRISHNAN NAIR (LATE), PULLARE HOUSE, P.O. THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM, LAB. ASSISTANT (RETIRED), NAVAMUKUNDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, M.G. ROAD, P.B. NO. 5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 32569 OF 2008 (B) ==================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were Lab Assistants and have retired from service on 31/7/06 and 30/7/2008. According to the petitioners, on their promotion, there was drop in emoluments and that their pay in the post of peon was not protected. As far as this grievance of the petitioners is concerned, it is evident from Exts.P6 and P7 replies given by the 1st respondent that their pay will be protected in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 37(b) of Part I KSR. This statement in Exts. P6 and P7 is also reiterated by the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of respondents. If that be so, the grievance that their pay is not protected, does not seem to be factually correct. Be that as it may, it is directed that the respondents shall give effect to the pay protection ordered in Exts. P6 and P7. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp