IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23041 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. RAVINDRAN NAIR, THAILAM THARAVELI, S. ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA -688006. 2. SHAJAHAN .E.N.S.COTTAGE, PUTHANVEEDU PURAYIDAM, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPT, OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, MUNICIPAL COMMON SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3. COCHIN CORPORATION REP.BY THE SECRETARY ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, -682011. 4. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA - 682001. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23041 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner was advised and appointed as a Police Constable in the AR Camp, Palakkad w.e.f. 1/12/97. Subsequently, he was advised for appointment in the Municipal Common Service as an LDC/Bill Collector on 18/8/03. He was relived from the Police Department, and thereupon joined the Municipal Common Service. It is stated that his pay in the Police Department was Rs.3425/- whereas his pay fixed in Municipal Common Service was Rs.3050/-. 2. Similar is the case of the second petitioner. He also was advised and appointed in the Police Department and was relieved by Ext.P5. Thereupon he joined Municipal Common Service as LD Typist. As is seen from Ext.P6, the judgment in WP(C) No.8685/2008, what was claimed by the petitioners therein was that considering their previous service in the Police Department, they should have been given pay protection on joining Municipal Common Service. Petitioners are relying on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court and Ext.P7 Government Order WPC No. 23041/10 :2 : issued extending similar benefit to some other similarly situated employees. 3. It is seen that although the petitioners have claimed benefit of pay protection considering their previous service in the Police Department by filing Exts.P8 and P9 before the 1st respondent, 1st respondent has not so far taken any decision on their claims. Therefore, as at present, all that is required is that the 1st respondent should expedite its decision on Exts.P8 and P9 duly adverting to Ext.P6 judgment of this Court and Ext.P7 Government Order relied on by the petitioners. 4. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to decide on Exts.P8 and P9 duly adverting o Exts.P6 and P7. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp