IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 30919 of 2007(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- E.P. JAYARAJAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VINITHA SADANAM, KARIMKUTTI VADAKKETHIL, NELLIKKAMON P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R1 TO R3 BY SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 30919 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered the service of the 1st respondent on 4.7.1972 and was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 18.10.1975. He was granted First Time Bound Higher Grade in the post of Senior Assistant on 18.10.1985 on completion of 10 years of service and second Time Bound Higher Grade was granted with effect from 18.10.1993. He retired on superannuation on 30.6.2002. About one and half years after retirement, he submitted Exhibit P3 before the Chief Engineer pointing out that a junior to the petitioner Smt.Sosamma Kochumman who had entered service as Cashier/Junior Assistant on 10.4.1974 whereas the petitioner had entered service as a Junior Assistant on 4.7.1972, was drawing higher pay during her incumbency as Senior Superintendent. Petitioner therefore sought for a rectification of anomaly and to step up his pay to be on a par with that of Smt.Sosamma Kochumman. His request was reiterated under Exhibit P4. The same was not considered. W.P ( C) No. 30919 of 2007 2 The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.11914 of 2006, which was disposed of under Exhibit P5 judgment. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows: “Prejudice has been caused, only to the petitioner, by the delay in filing the representations. Further, even if his salary is stepped up, the same need be done, only notionally and he need not be paid any arrears of salary. So, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the representations filed by the petitioner are belated and therefore, cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. Having regard to the facts of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. Pursuant to Exhibit P5, an order was passed by the Secretary of the Board, as per Exhibit P6. It is found that the petitioner is eligible for pay parity with Smt.Sosamma Kochumman. Therefore, the petitioner’s pay was stepped up to Rs.11900 with effect from 1.4.1999 in the scale of pay Rs.10590- 15120. Subsequent step up was ordered to be given effect on 1.8.1999 and subsequent increment after 12 months. Consistent with the observations made in Exhibit P5 judgment it was noted W.P ( C) No. 30919 of 2007 3 that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits consequent upon the stepping up of the pay. But it is further ordered that the benefits of the step up will be notional upto 29.12.2005, with monetary benefits only from 30.12.2005. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. It is true that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits by way of arrears of pay consequent upon the stepping up of pay. Petitioner retired on 30.6.2002 and the scale of pay had been revised with effect from 1.4.1999. This will entail a revision in the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner. There is no reason why the retirement benefits due to the petitioner should not reflect the revised pay consequent upon his pay being stepped up as ordered in Exhibit P6. Though the petitioner's pension was revised under Exhibit P7, it is in consonance with Exhibit P6 and the benefits have been granted only with effect from 1.7.2002. 4. In my view, there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied the retirement benefits due to him, on the basis of the stepped up pay which he would have drawn, had the pay been on par with Smt.Sosamma Kochumman on the date of his W.P ( C) No. 30919 of 2007 4 retirement. There seems to be no justification to deny the benefits of the stepped up pay in the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. In the result, Exhibit P6 is quashed to the extent to which the Board has ordered that the benefit of stepped up pay will be notional upto 29.12.2005. It is made clear that the benefit of stepped up pay will be effected from 1.7.2002, the date of retirement of the petitioner. Accordingly, revised retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 30919 of 2007 5 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007