IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1097 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30364/2004 Dated 11/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (T) DEPARTMENT,GOVT.OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER,LAND REVENUE, GOVT.OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- R.SABASH MARY,REVENUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (COMMERCIAL TAX),KAKKANAD,KOCHI. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1097 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondent/writ petitioner joined service as Lower Division Typist, under the appellants, on 16.6.1982. She was promoted as Upper Division Typist, on 9.1.1996, with effect from 1.1.1992. The scale of pay of Upper Division Typist was Rs.950-1590. Her pay was fixed at Rs.1,100/-. Later, as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.7.1996, she was given category change as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from 24.5.1992. The scales of pay of Upper Division Typist and Upper Division Clerk were the same. The respondent joined the post of Upper Division Clerk on 3.10.1996. For the purpose of fixation of pay, the date of joining is taken as 1.10.1996. As per the 1993 pay revision, which was implemented with effect from 1.3.1992, the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk was revised to Rs.1200- 30-1560-40-2040. The basic pay drawn by the respondent as on 1.4.1996 was Rs.1,350/-. While so, based on her lien in the cadre WA NO.1097/09 2 of Upper Division Typist, she was further promoted as Senior Grade Typist, with effect from 1.4.1996, by Ext.P7 order dated 4.8.1999. Thereupon, her pay was fixed under Rule 28(a) of the Kerala Service Rules, as Rs.1,400/-, in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist, which was Rs.1,400-40-1800-50-2300. The basic pay of Rs.1,400/- was arrived at, by adding Rs.30/-, which was the increment in the lower post, to the basic pay of Rs.1,350/-, drawn on 1.4.1996. Since Rs.1,380/- was not a stage in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist, the pay was fixed at the stage of Rs.1,400/-, which happened to be the minimum of scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist. Later, by mistake, she was granted one increment in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist, on 1.7.1996 and her pay was fixed at Rs.1,440/-, on 1.7.1996. When the respondent moved for the benefits of the 1998 pay revision, which came into effect from 1.3.1997, the above mistake was noticed and Ext.P4 objection was taken. The same is reflected in Ext.P5 also. When the respondent came to the scale of pay attached to the post of Upper Division Clerk, with effect from 1.10.1996, from the post of Senior Grade Typist, her pay was taken as Rs.1,400/-, by ignoring the increment of Rs.40/- given on WA NO.1097/09 3 1.7.1996. Since Rs.1,400/- was not a stage in the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk, her pay was fixed as Rs.1,380+Rs.20 (personal pay). On 1.4.1997, her pay was again fixed as Rs.1,380+30, i.e., 1,410/-. But, until Exts.P4 and P5 orders were issued, she was given pay protection of Rs.1,440/-, which was a stage in the scale of pay of Upper Division Clerk. The above mistake was corrected and her pay was brought down to Rs.1,410/- in the place of Rs.1,440/-, from 1.4.1997. Those steps taken by the appellants/respondents were challenged in the Writ Petition. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for quashing Exts.P4 and P5. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We notice that what has been done in the impugned orders was only correction of a mistake in the fixation of pay which arose, as a result of grant of one increment on 1.7.1996, in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist. When that mistake was noticed, the appellants should be conceded freedom to correct it. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the impugned orders. The respondent could have obtained increment in the scale of Senior Grade WA NO.1097/09 4 Typist, if she had continued in that post for one year. But, she was reverted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, on 1.10.1996, and therefore, she was entitled to draw increment only in the post of Upper Division Clerk and that too, on completion of one year's service. Of course, the service rendered in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Typist will also be reckoned for that purpose. Thus, she became eligible for the increment in the scale of Upper Division Clerk, with effect from 1.4.1997. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that in case the pensionary benefits of the respondent has not been settled so far because of this dispute, the same shall be settled and paid, as expeditiously as possible. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1097 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 8th February, 2010.