IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2029 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15699/2005 Dated 01/06/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- M.G.DAMODARAN, SALES TAX OFFIER (RETD), MANIYANGATTU HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2029 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 15th February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He retired from service as a Sales Tax Officer. While in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and by Ext.P1 order dated 23.12.1999, a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect, was imposed on him. On appeal, the said punishment was reduced to one of barring two increments without cumulative effect. As a result of the said punishment, the increments due to the appellant on 1.10.2000 and 1.10.2001 were not released. If he was in service as on 1.10.2002, he would have got three increments on the said date. But, the appellant retired from service on 31.1.2002. So, when the pay of the appellant was computed, taking into account the emoluments of the last ten months, he suffered the disadvantage of the increment bar. Further, the Government ordered to recover Rs.2,800/- from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, as the monetary value equivalent of the increment to be barred. WA NO.2029/05 2 Challenging those steps taken by the competent authorities, the writ petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the first grievance, but as far as the second grievance was concerned, the learned Judge observed that having regard to the date of retirement of the appellant, he suffered increment bar for 16 months. So, the monetary value of the increment for eight months alone was ordered to be recovered. Feeling aggrieved by the stand taken by the learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with the decision of the respondents in computing his last drawn pay, without taking into account the increments, the Writ Appeal is preferred. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice, Note 8 to Rule 63 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, which was introduced prospectively with effect from 12.8.2005. The said amendment would redress the grievance of the persons like the appellant, who retired from service, while suffering the WA NO.2029/05 3 punishment of barring increments without cumulative effect and before the restoration of the barred increments. The amendment would show that the Government was conscious of the position and it has chosen to amend the rule, only with prospective effect. So, any ambiguity in the rule now stands cleared. In other words, when the appellant retired, his last pay drawn could have been reckoned only as it was done by the respondents. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2029 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 15th February, 2010.