IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3377 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.SARATH KUMAR, S/O.P.R.SOMAN PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS, AUDIO VISUAL TECHNICIAN, STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMA SWAMY, SRI.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KOTTARAKKARA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3377/2008-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 10/04/1990. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/08/1995 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF REVISED PAY SCALE ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/06/2001 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.145/2006/FIN. D(C) DTD. 25/03/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/07/2007 TO THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/10/2007 TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).1788/07 LSGD DTD. 29/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 222/D/1990/SIRD DTD. 29/11/2007 BY THE R.3. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/12/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.37485/2007. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 11/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3377 OF 2008(B) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Audio Visual Tehnician cum Roneo Operator under the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, he was getting pay in the scale of 4500-7000. It is stated that though he is entitled the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910, by Ext.P5 he was extended revision only in the scale of 4510-7480. According to the petitioner, he represented for fixation in the scale of 7480- 11910. That claim was considered and rejected by Ext.P11. It is thereupon that the writ petition is filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is stated that, the petitioner was appointed initially on daily waged basis as Roneo Operator in 1987. He was regularized with effect from 10.4.1990 in the scale of 675-1125. On the implementation of the 1993 pay revision his pay was fixed in the scale of 865-1450 and then in the scale of 1050-1600 with effect from 1.3.1992. Again his pay was fixed at Rs.3350-5275. First time bound higher grade on completion of 10 years was extended to the petitioner as on 10.4.2000 and his pay was fixed WPC.No. 3377/08 :2 : in the scale of 4000-6090. His pay was again refixed with effect from 11.4.2000 and fixed in the scale of 4500-7000. It is also stated that second time bound higher grade was given to the petitioner in the scale of 4600-8000 and that his pay was fixed at Rs.5625 on 11.4.2000. 3. It is stated that his pay was fixed in the scale of 4500- 7000 with effect from 11.4.2000 on the basis that the post of Adio Visual Technicial cum Roneo Operator is identical to the post of Artist/Photographer Grd.I in the Rural Development Board. It is also stated that the benefit of pay revision order dated 25.3.2006 was extended to the staff of the 3rd respondent vide order dated 29.6.2007 with effect from 1.7.2004. According to the respondents, in the Government order the entry scale of Audio Visual Technician cum Roneo Operator is Rs.2750-4625 and that at that time petitioner was erroneously enjoying the entry scale of 3350-5275. It is also stated that in Ext.P8 Government Order, the revised scale of pay of Visual Technician cum Roneo Operator is 4510-7480, which was later modified as 4750-7820. It is stated that therefore the pay of the petitioner fixed in Ext.P8 in the scale of 4510-7480 is strictly in terms of the pay revision order dated WPC.No. 3377/08 :3 : 25.3.2006. It is stated that the petitioner erroneously got the higher initial scale only for the reason that he was given the benefit of GO(MS).No.13/1991/LSG(RD) dated 28.8.1991, which was not applicable to him. 4. If the higher scale initially enjoyed by the petitioner was erroneously given to him, it was always open to the respondent to correct that error. Petitioner has no case that he was entitled to the benefit of GO(MS)No.13/1991/LSG(RD) dated 28.8.1991, the benefit of which was extended to him. If that be so, his pay in revised scale could only have been in the scale of 2750-4625. If that be so, the scale as revised by Ext.P8 is 4510-7480, which was later modified as 4750-7820. Therefore, this is a case where an error initially committed by respondents was rectified. Consequently therefore there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner that he should have been given fixation in the scale 7480-11910. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 3377/08 :4 :