IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 4359 of 2007(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEER C.B., S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48, CHUMBIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONJANNAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRAWING TEACHER, GOVT. VHSS VALARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. VHSS VALARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. SHRI.T.T.MOHAMMED, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R.2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4359/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY AND THE REQUEST OF OPTION. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/05/2002. P4 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 07/08/2006 IN WPC NO.20914/2003. P5 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2006 IN WPC NO.21604/2006. P6 : COPY OF the REPRESENTATION DATED 21/11/2005 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF the LETTER OF REJECTION DATED 18/10/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/08/2007 OF the SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4359 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P7. The petitioner joined as Drawing Teacher Gr.II on 10/01/1984 and was promoted as Grade-I on 10/01/1994. It is stated that, thereupon his pay was fixed in the scale of 1350-2200. According to him, in respect of a P.D. Teacher pay was fixed in the scale of 1350-4500 with effect from 01/05/1997, which scale was given to the petitioner only with effect from 01/01/1998. Thereupon, he filed Ext.P1, claiming parity with the basic pay of the P.D. teacher, and was allowed with effect from 01/05/1997. The same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for ratification and was, eventually, rejected by the 2nd respondent relying on Ext.P3. By Ext.P6, the petitioner took up the matter before the 1st respondent, and that was also rejected by Ext.P7. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed. WP(C) No.4359/2007 -2- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on Exts.P4 & P5 judgments and submits that irrespective of whether the junior and senior are in the same cadre or not, going by the length of service, if the person drawing higher pay is junior, pay of the senior is bound to be stepped up to a level equal to that of the junior. However, a close reading of Ext.P4 judgment shows that the claim in that writ petition was between an HSA(Malayalam) and HSA (Core Subject), and that the rival claimants belonged to the same cadre. In this case, the petitioner, a Drawing Teacher, falling under the specialist teacher category, raised his claim as against a PD teacher belonging to the UPSA category, without a common seniority in between them. 3. Admittedly, seniority of teachers is governed by Rule 37 of Chapter 14 read with Rule 3 of Chapter 23, KER. Evidently, a P.D. Teacher and a Drawing Teacher do not belong to the same cadre for one to be senior or junior to WP(C) No.4359/2007 -3- the other. If that be so, the Rule for stepping up of pay as provided in paragraph '9' of Annexure III Government Order dated 25/11/98 mentioned in Ext.P4 cannot be extended to the case of the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, Exts.P2 & P7 are to be upheld and I do so. This writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg