IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2843 of 2005(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.CHANDRASEKHARAKUMAR, DRAFTMAN GRADE-I, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPADY, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJAMOHANAN PILLAI A.R., SUPERINTENDENT, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, PALAI. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.EBY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPLA SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2843/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 DTD.26.5.95. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 DTD. 18.11.95. P3. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SPECIAL RULES. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.14.12.95. P5. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.24.6.96. P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.10.8.96 BY P1. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.10.8.96 BY P2. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R1 DTD.6.7.01. P9. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY P1 DTD.10.10.01. P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.8.01. P11. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.1.10.01 BY R1. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R2 DTD.22.11.01. P13. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R2 DTD.7.12.01. P14. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN O.P.No. 37767/01. P15. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.A.NO.580/04. P16. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.7.04 TO R1. P17. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R1 DTD.9.2.04. P18. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.2.04 OF R2. P19. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R2 DTD.19.12.2001. P20. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.18.1.2000 BY R2. P21. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.4.12.98. P22. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R2 DTD.28.11.01. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 2843 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in this writ petition are Draftsmen Grade I in the Technical Education Department of the Government of Kerala. As per the special rules applicable, the post of Draftsman Grade I along with those of Assistant Lecturer, Instructor in Engineering and Foreman are feeder categories for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The Government, by Ext.P4 order, revised the scale of pay of the Assistant Lecturers as Rs.2060-3200 from 1640-2990. The petitioners claim that since the posts of Assistant Lecturer and Draftsman Grade I are feeder categories for the post of Lecturer, they are equated categories and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the revised scale of pay as applicable to the Assistant Lecturers. The petitioners would contend that in fact by Ext.P5 clarification, the Government has held that the scale of pay of Rs.2060-3200 is applicable to Assistant Lecturers and equated categories. Therefore, according to them, the post of Draftsman Grade I being an equated category of Assistant Lecturer, denial of the same scale of pay as applicable to Assistant Lecturer to Draftsman Grade I is discriminatory. 2. When the petitioners' representations in this regard were rejected by the Government, the petitioners approached this Court by w.p.c.2843/05 2 filing O.P.No.37767/2001. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 11.12.2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the contentions of the petitioners. The petitioners filed writ appeal and, by Ext.P15 judgment dated 24.5.2004, that writ appeal was also dismissed. The petitioners now contend that some others who were similarly situated like the petitioners were granted that benefit, which was admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in those cases. In Ext.P15 judgment, the contention of the respondents that such benefits were given wrongly and is under review was also noted. The petitioners would now contend that no such review has been made by the respondents and, therefore, the contentions raised by the respondents in the writ appeal were wrong. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the scale of pay as applicable to the Assistant Lecturers, is the contention raised. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents disputing the contentions of the petitioners. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Admittedly the petitioners had earlier approached this Court for the same relief prayed for in this writ petition, by filing O.P.No.37767/2001 and W.A.No.580/2004 was also filed from the judgment in that original petition. In that, ultimately, the Division Bench has held thus: w.p.c.2843/05 3 “2...... In view of the categoric stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, we have no hesitation to hold that the nature of duties and responsibilities of Draftsmen Grade I and that of the Assistant Lecturers and others forming part of the feeder category are not the same and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim pay parity. No fault can thus be found with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard.” The Division Bench has categorically held that the posts of Assistant Lecturer and Draftsman Grade I are not equated categories and, therefore, they are not entitled to pay parity. If any submission made by the respondents before the Division Bench in respect of the similar benefits granted to some others is wrong, the remedy of the petitioners lies in filing a review petition in that judgment. As far as the petitioners are concerned, their right for pay parity with that of the Assistant Lecturers has been negatived by the Division Bench, which judgment has become final. Therefore, they cannot now file another writ petition seeking the same relief as the principles of resjudicata would stand in their way. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.2843/05 4