IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No.289 of 2006 (D) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.21557/2000 Dated 23/09/2005 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE), EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI-11. 2. THE DIRECTOR (INSP.& Q/C), EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL, NEW DELHI-8. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------------------------- K. SIVARAMA PILLAI, STAFF CAR DRIVER, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, COCHIN-11. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.289 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J Respondent/petitioner was working as Staff Car Driver Grade-I (SCDGr.I) in the office of the first appellant/Export Inspection Agency. Export Inspection Agency is an autonomous body coming under Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. Periodical pay commission reports applicable to central government employees are not automatically applicable to the employees of Export Inspection Agency unless that is approved by the Agency/the appellant herein. Benefits of Fifth Pay Commission were decided to be extended to the respondent/petitioner as can be seen from Ext.P1. Ministry of Commerce while accepting the fifth pay commission W. A. No.289 of 2006 -2- report, in Ext.P1 it is stated as follows:- “Council/Agencies are directed to take special care in future to ensure that no pay scales and allowances at variance with those in Central Government are adopted by them in respect of any category of their employees.” 2. There was a slight modification in the pay commission report for the Staff Car Drivers as can be seen from Ext.P2. Since that benefit was not extended to the respondent/ petitioner, respondent/petitioner was only paid Grade-II salary as per revised salary scale. He approached this Court as his representations were not considered. The learned Single Judge found that the Fifth Pay Commission as such was extended by the Export Promotion Agency and it was also held that after holding so, it cannot be stated that part of the pay commission report will not be accepted. Ext.P2 has become part of the original recommendation itself. Only that was a correction and the learned Single Judge W. A. No.289 of 2006 -3- found that after accepting the pay commission report there is no justification in not extending the benefit of Ext.P2 to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P11 and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P2 to the petitioner. Respondent/petitioner has also now retired. In the circumstances, we fully agree with the views of the learned Single Judge. 3. Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-