IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20035 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION (C.I.T.U.), REG.NO.431/75, TC.42/1523,THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.MANOHARAN THAMPI. 2. K.MANOHARAN THAMPI, JUNIOR INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD.NO.4330, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD.NO.433O, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON, SC FOR R3 AND R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20035 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is an Association of the Employees of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd petitioner is one of its members. Their grievance is mainly regarding Ext.P5. It is stated that by Ext.P2, the Pay Revision Committee submitted its report, which inter alia provided the principles of pay fixation, where it was stated that the arrears from 1.1.2005 is limited to 10% instead of 15% of fitment benefit. According to the petitioners since the receipt of Ext.P2, the employees have been receiving the benefit on that basis. Subsequently, Ext.P3 Government Order was issued implementing Ext.P2, but however providing that arrears will be limited to 10% of the basic pay. As a result of the aforesaid provision in Ext.P3, the benefits which were already received by the workmen, were in excess of what was provided therein and in order to resolve the contradiction between Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 to the above extent, petitioners filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. The matter is pending consideration of the first respondent and at that stage, the 3rd respondent has issued WPC 20035/09 :2 : Ext.P5, directing recovery of the amount received by the employees in excess of what is provided in Ext.P3. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the only prayer that is pressed before me is for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible and to direct that Ext.P5 and identical communications be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile. 3. I heard the Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and also the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 4. Having regard to the grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in Ext.P4 and in view of the recovery that is now proposed by Ext.P5 and other identical communications issued in this behalf, I feel that it is only appropriate that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P4. 5. Therefore there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this WPC 20035/09 :3 : writ petition, with notice to the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It is directed that in the meanwhile, recovery pursuant to Ext.P5 and similar other communications issued by the 4th respondent shall be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp