IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 16559 of 2000(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR (HANDLOOM), TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD. 2. P. PONNAPPAN, COIR INSPECTOR, (SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR), OFFICE OF THE COIR INSPECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. M. SEBASTIAN, SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR (INDUSTRIES), NEDUMANGAD. 4. KURUVILA KURIAN, SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, LIQUIDATION INSPECTOR (COIR), ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.RESMI G. NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MUHAMMED HASHIM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 16559/2000-U: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 27159/2000 IN O.P. NO. 16559/2000-U CLOSED 03/12/2009. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EA4-8763/98 DTD. 07/11/1998 OF THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE SECRETARY, PAY REVISION CELL DTD. 23/02/1999. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.38730/A2/90/ID DTD. 12/08/1991. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 08/10/1999. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 32370/99 C OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 03/01/2000. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 6665/PRC-C1/2000/FIN. DTD. 11/04/2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16559 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Junior Superintendents in the Department of Industries and Commerce. They are now working as Senior Co-operative Inspectors. The petitioners originally started service as L.D.Clerk-Typist in the Department either by direct recruitment or by inter-departmental transfer. They were promoted as U.D.Clerks, Junior Co-operative Inspectors and Junior Superintendents. While they were promoted as Junior Superintendents, they were given fixation under Section 28A of Part 1 of the KSR. The 1st petitioner's basic pay was thus fixed as Rs.1850/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1520-2660. While they were working so, 1997 pay revision came into force with effect from 1.3.1997. The revised scale of pay corresponding to Rs.1520- 2620 for the post of Junior Superintendents was Rs.5500-9075. They were entitled to have their basic pay fixed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075 corresponding to the basic pay they were enjoying prior to the pay revision. In the case of the 1st petitioner he was entitled to have his pay in the revised scale of pay fixed corresponding to Rs.1850/- in the pre-revised scale of pay. But they were only given minimum in the scale of pay viz. Rs.5500/- as basic pay. This, according to the petitioners, is an anomaly, since the petitioners are o.p.16559/00 2 entitled to have their pay fixed corresponding to their basic pay in the pre-revised scale, which has not been done. Their second grievance is that prior to the revision in 1997, the scale of pay of Junior Superintendents was Rs.1520-2600. At that time the scale of pay of Senior Co-operative Inspectors was Rs.1600-2660, which was higher than that of the post of Junior Superintendents. But in the pay revision, the scale of pay of the Junior Superintendents was refixed as Rs.5500-9075, whereas that of the Senior Co-operative Inspectors' was revised to only Rs.5250-8150. According to the petitioners, the post of Senior Superintendent being a promotion post of Junior Superintendent, fixation of scale of pay less than the scale of pay for the post of Senior Co-operative Inspectors is clearly an anomaly, which requires to be rectified. However, the petitioners' representation in respect of the above grievances was rejected by Ext.P6. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P6 in this original petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the contention of the petitioners that the post of Senior Co- operative Inspectors was a promotion post for the Junior Superintendents is denied. According to the 1st respondent, the post of Junior Superintendent is borne on the Ministerial Subordinate Service, whereas the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector is borne on the Kerala Industries Subordinate Service. The Junior Superintendents are o.p.16559/00 3 considered for promotion as Senior Co-operative Inspectors only considering their lien in the post of Junior Co-operative Inspectors and not by virtue of their claim for promotion as Junior Superintendents. The pay revision committee, on a consideration of the duties and functions of the post, decided that the scale of pay applicable to the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector is Rs.5250-8150. It is categorically denied that the post of Junior Superintendent is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the policy decision of the Government to assign the scale of pay of Rs.5250-8150 to the Senior Co-operative Inspectors cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable. Regarding the complaint of the petitioners on fixation of pay, the only answer in the counter affidavit is that the fixation of pay for the revised scale of pay is on the basis of certain rules and methods of fixation prescribed in the pay revision order, which cannot be overturned for certain persons. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioners have not been able to satisfy me that the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector is a promotion post for Junior Superintendent. The Government Pleader would submit that formerly there were no special rules for these posts and as per the special rules later framed, the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector is a promotion o.p.16559/00 4 post for Junior Co-operative Inspector and not for Junior Superintendent. According to the learned Government Pleader, the promotion post for Junior Superintendents is that of Senior Superintendents. The Junior Superintendents who have come by promotion from the post of Junior Co-operative Inspectors are considered for appointment as Senior Co-operative Inspectors by virtue of their lien in the post of Junior Co-operative Inspectors and not because they were Junior Superintendents. The petitioners have not been able to refute the said contention. However, I find merit in the contention of the petitioners regarding fixation of pay in the post of Junior Superintendents on pay revision. Admittedly the pre-revised scale of pay for the post of Junior Superintendent was Rs.1520-2660. The pay of the 1st petitioner in that scale of pay was Rs.1850/-. The pay of other petitioners was also fixed likewise. Therefore, when the pay of Rs.1520-2600 is revised to Rs.5500-9075, the fixation of pay of the petitioners cannot be in the minimum of the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075. There has to be fixation corresponding to the scale of pay drawn by them in the scale of Rs.1520-2660. Of course, that can only be as per the rules of fixation of pay as per the pay revision order. But on the face of it, I find that there is some irregularity in the same. The 1st respondent has not been able to dispel my prima facie doubt regarding the same by appropriate o.p.16559/00 5 averments in the counter affidavit except that the fixation has been done in accordance with the rules of fixation. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is necessary to look into the question afresh on the basis of the rules regarding fixation as per 1997 pay revision order. This shall be done by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioners. Ext.P6 to the extent it denies the petitioners' claim in that regard is quashed. However, I make it clear that in respect of other questions, Ext.P6 would stand confirmed. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16559 of 2000-U ================== J U D G M E N T 3rd December, 2009