IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31353 of 2003(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.M.KURIAN, S/O.M.V.MANI, AGED 49 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-CINEMA OPERATOR, MOBILE SOIL TESTING LAB, KAVANAD, KOLLAM-3. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31353/2003-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E/(2)/9105/90 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRL. OFFICER, KOLLAM IN FAVOUR OF THE P.1. DTD. 27/03/1996. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E (2) 14993/96 OF THE PRL. AGRL. OFFICER, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE P.2. DTD. 04/10/1996. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE P.1. DTD. 03/08/1998. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE P.2. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SH/(1)/50757/98 OF THE R.3. DTD. 18/03/1999. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 38973/AF3/98/AD OF -DO- DTD. 05/10/2000. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 23703/AF3/01/AGRL. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 20/11/2002. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SH/(1)/24623/2002 OF THE R.3. DTD. 05/06/2002. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31353 OF 2003(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners on being advised by the PSC, were appointed as Driver-cum-Cinema Operators in the Mobile Soil Testing Laboratory, under the Agricultural Department. In the appointment orders, scale of pay of the petitioners were fixed at Rs.825-1250, which is equivalent to that of Driver Grade-II. Petitioners submit that in the subsequent pay revisions, common scale of pay has been fixed for the post of Driver-Cum Operators/Projectionists and similar categories and that the same is higher than the scale of pay fixed for the post of Driver Grade-II. According to the petitioners, having regard to the nature of the duties they are discharging, they are entitled to be paid the scale of pay that is fixed for Driver-Cum Operator/Projectionists and similar categories. 2. Raising this claim, they submitted representations to respondents. Finally by Ext.P6, their request was rejected. Further representation made was also rejected by Ext.P7. Thereafter, petitioners sought reversion to the post of Driver and WPC .No.31353/03 :2 : that was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have to drive the mobile vans to places identified by the authorities. It is stated that, the duties they discharge are similar to those discharged by Driver cum operator/ Projectionist and it is on that basis petitioners justified their claim for higher scale of pay. A reading of Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Government, shows that apart from stating that the claim made by the petitioners is inadmissible, the Government has not examined or adverted to the nature of duties discharged by the petitioners and on that basis considered whether the petitioners are eligible for the higher scale of pay. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 does not reflect consideration of the claim with due application of mind and for that reason I am not inclined to hold that these orders cannot be sustained. 4. In my view, in order to decide whether the petitioners' claim is justified or not, a proper examination of the duties discharged by the petitioners is what is called for. If on such assessment, the respondents find that the petitioners stand on a par with the Driver-cum Operator/Projectionist their claim has to WPC .No.31353/03 :3 : be considered in that view of the matter. Therefore, the assessment of the nature of the duties discharged by the petitioners should be conducted by the 3rd respondent. 5. In view of the above, I quash Exts.P6 and 7 and direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the 3rd respondent shall examine whether the duties discharged by the petitioners are comparable with what is discharged by Driver-cum- Operator/Projectionists and if he is satisfied that the duties are same or similar, necessary proposal shall be made to respondents 1 and 2, who shall pass final orders dealing with the claim of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent shall examine the matter and if satisfied, shall make proposal to respondents 1 and 2 and as expeditiously a possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and if a proposal is made, respondents 1 and 2 shall make a final decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/