IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 28955 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. N.SOMARAJAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, (RETIRED AS SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY FROM S.N.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,KOLLAM) RESIDING AT:VIJAYAMANDIRAM,ASRAMAM,KOLLAM-02. 2. N.VIJAYAN, W/O.N.SOMARAJAN, S.G.LECTURER IN ENGLISH-RETIRED FROM S.N.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,KOLLAM. RESIDING AT:VIJAYAMANDIRAM,ASRAMAM,KOLLAM-02. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.THAMBAN, MR.R.REJI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,KOLLAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SANDESH RAJA, R3 BY MR.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, S.N.TRUST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.28955 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25th day of February 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved by certain anomalies in fixation of pay of the petitioners consequent to the implementation of UGC scale of pay. The petitioners relies on earlier judgment of this Court on an identical question in writ petitions filed by others similarly situated. 2. The pay fixation was as early as in the late 1990s. The petitioners are coming up for the first time challenging the same on 13/10/2009. In another batch of writ petitions, filed by other similarly situated lecturers, I took the view that, since the petitioners were sleeping over their rights, they cannot be given the same benefits given to the others, who approached this Court in time and got orders in their favour. That writ petition was taken in appeal before the Division Bench in which by Ext.P9 judgment, while upholding the judgment the Division Bench held as follows: W.P.(C). No.28955 OF 2009 -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants for some time, we noticed that the appellants have never moved any of the administrative authorities concerned to redress their grievance. They have come to this Court directly seeking the aforementioned reliefs, as if the High Court is primary authority to consider their grievance. We notice the submission of the learned Government Pleader that note 5 contained in Ext.P1, imposes several conditions for stepping up of pay of seniors who are drawing lesser pay than their juniors pursuant to the implementation of Ext.P1. They are matters for the concerned administrative authorities to look into. In view of the fact that the appellants have never moved any of the administrative authorities pointing out their grievance and seeking redressal of the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Therefore, even assuming the ground on which the appeal was admitted is valid, the grievance of the appellants cannot be considered. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appellants may be given liberty to move the concerned administrative authorities to redress their grievance. There is no necessity for us to give any permission. If the appellants have any right in this regard, they can always pursue that. 3. The petitioners submit that the delay cannot stand in the way of the petitioners raising their claims, since as W.P.(C). No.28955 OF 2009 -3- decided by Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [1995 (5) SCC 628], pay fixation is a recurring right. I am of the opinion that the judgment in similar case having been upheld by the Division Bench, the petitioner cannot contend so. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in terms of Ext.P9 judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE nl.