IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27050 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,FIELD SUPERIVISOR O/O.THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KALPETTA,RESIDING AT CHANDRABHAVANAM,THRIKKAIPETTA MEPPADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, O/O.THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, WAYANAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.27050 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th September,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He was appointed as Field Supervisor as per order dated 22.12.1981 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Wayanad. But his services were illegally terminated overlooking the fact that he is a physically handicapped person. He was re-engaged only as per Ext.P1 order dated 5.7.1995. In effect, there was a long gap between the petitioner's termination and reinstatement in service. Petitioner then moved the Government for benefits after re-engageement , inter alia, relatable to the period when he was kept out of service. 2. By Ext.P2, this Court directed the petitioner's claim to be considered. Again, the petitioner's claim for benefits for the period when he was kept out of service was declined and this was challenged in WPC No.32710/03. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 judgment reads as follows: "Despite such observation Ext.P9 order was passed holding that the petitioner is not entitled W.P ( C) No.27050 of 2009 2 to the benefits. There is no satisfactory discussion as to why the benefits could not be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted in the year 2003. Three chances had been given to the respondents in 2005 to file counter affidavit. Yet there is no counter affidavit. Be that as it may, since there is no serious dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for regularisation in service in terms of Ext.P3 it is only appropriate that the petitioner is treated to have been continued in service for all purposes including fixation of pay. However, he will not be entitled to backwages. In other words, there is no termination as on 21.1.1985. The service will be treated as continuous. The pay will be fixed notionally with all the consequential eligible benefits of increment, grade, promotions etc. The monetary benefits arising out of such fixation/promotions will be limited to notional basis. I quash Ext.P2. The needful orders in the light of the above declarations shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment." 3. In spite what has been held above under Ext.P3 judgment, by Ext.P4 petitioner having been granted first, second, and third time bound higher grade which obviously could have been done only by taking into account the period from 1985 to 1995 on a notional basis, the arrears consequent upon such re-fixation has been confined only to the period of one year from the date of the order. This has W.P ( C) No.27050 of 2009 3 been challenged in this writ petition. Petitioner has moved the Government by Ext.P6 detailed representation. 4. Heard learned Senior Government Pleader also. 5. Prima facie, the contentions raised by the petitioner, for arrears of wages in the scale of pay mentioned in Ext.P4, on the grant of first, second and third time bound higher grade are to be sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner. Obviously the monetary benefits arising out of such re-fixation could be available only for the period after which the petitioner has actually been re-engaged pursuant to Ext.P1 order. But that also seems to have been limited and abridged under Ext.P4. 6. The Government shall look into Ext.P4 and take a decision, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.27050 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.27050 of 2009 5