IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1499 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31590/2006 Dated 21/05/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 4 ------------------------ 1. K.V.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS) TRIVANDRUM. 2. N.PADMAKUMAR, SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS AND BUILDINGS) TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1499 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the writ petitioners. They are Senior Finance Officers of the Kerala General service. Their grievance raised in the Writ Petition was that with the implementation of the pay revision, on accepting the 8th Pay Revision Commission Report by the Government, they were granted a lower scale of pay of Rs.20,700-26,600 when compared to the Joint Secretary in the Finance Department. The scale of pay of the latter, as per the 8th Pay Commission Report was Rs.23,200-31,150. According to the petitioners, all along they were treated as equivalent to Joint Secretary in the Administrative Secretariat in the matter of grant of pay scale. Further, they also submit their duties and functions are identical to the duties and functions of the Joint Secretary in the Finance Department. They were drawing the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.12,600 - 15,600/-, which was the pay scale of the Joint Secretary in the Finance W.A.No.1499/2009 2 Department. In this Pay Revision, they were granted only the revised pay scale of Deputy Secretary in the Finance Department. Raising the above grievance, they approached the Government. The Government considered the matter and rejected their claim by Ext.P7. This Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P7 and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. The respondents resisted the prayers in the Writ Petition contending that though the pre-revised scale of pay of Senior Finance Officer in the Kerala General Service and Joint Secretary in the Finance Department were the same, the Joint Secretary was being paid Rs.200/- extra as special pay in lieu of higher time scale. With the present Pay Revision, the payment of special pay was stopped and they were granted a higher scale of pay. So, the respondents submitted that the Joint Secretary in the Finance Department was always drawing a higher pay when compared to the Senior Finance Officers. Regarding the nature of duties and functions, the respondents asserted that they were different. They cannot be treated as identical. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and considering all the W.A.No.1499/2009 3 contentions raised by the writ petitioners, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned senior counsel, Sri.N.Nandamumara Menon, canvassed the very same points, which were unsuccessfully raised before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in K.T.Veerappa v. State of Karnataka [2006(9)SCC 406] and Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. [2008(1) SCC 586]. Those decisions laid down the well settled principles that normally the court cannot interfere with the Revision of pay, but, in special circumstances, where the revision made is highly arbitrary and unjust and violating the fundamental rights to equality of a section of employees, the court can interfere. Learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Renjit Kumar [2008(3)KLT 33 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court upheld the claim of the Industrial Tribunal to get the pay scale granted to the presiding officers of Labour courts, who were District Judges, based on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. W.A.No.1499/2009 4 4. We notice that the learned Single Judge has rightly found that the pay of Joint Secretary was always higher when compared to a Senior Finance Officer, even though pay scales were identical. When the respondents assert that the functions and duties of the Joint Secretary are not identical to the duties and functions of the Senior Finance Officer, we find no reason to discard the said submission in the absence of any compelling material before us to take a different view. The decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel has been rightly distinguished by the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Single Judge for upholding Ext.P7. We feel that the judgment is not vitiated on any ground warranting interference by the Appellate Court. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps