IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 35924 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. A.G.RAJU, ASSISTANT, O/O.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ERANAKULAM 2. G.SIVA PRASAD, ASSISTANT O/O.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, O/O.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ERNAKULAM-31 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.35924/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/8/92 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES WEIGHT LIFTING, POWER LIFTING & BEST PHYSIQUE COMPETITIONS 1993-94. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES WEIGHT LIFTING, POWER LIFTING & BEST PHYSIQUE COMPETITIONS 1994-95. P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES POWER LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP 1995-96. P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES POWER LIFTING & SWIMMING TOURNAMENT. P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES WEIGHT LIFTING, POWER LIFTING & BEST PHYSIQUE COMPETITIONS 1993-94. P7 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES WEIGHT LIFTING, POWER LIFTING & BEST PHYSIQUE COMPETITIONS 1994-95. P8 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE ALL INDIA CIVIL SERVICES POWER LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP 1995-96. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/96 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, AWARDING ONE ADVANCE INCREMENT TO SRI.V.S.LEJU. P10 COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 30/6/94 AWARDING ADVANCE INCREMENT AND CASH AWARD TO ONE SMT.SEENA RAGHAVAN. P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/2/98 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P13 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/9/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.35924/2010 P14 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/3/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P15 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7/3/98 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P17 COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 13/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-400/98 DATED 24/03/04 FROM THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.35924 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Assistants in the Advocate General's Office at Ernakulam. The first petitioner is a person who has secured first place in power lifting (75 kg. Category) in the All India Civil Service Tournaments conducted during the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1998-1999 respectively. The second petitioner is a person who has secured first place in power lifting (60 kg. Category) in the All India Civil Service Tournaments conducted during the years 1993- 1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. 2. As per Ext.P1, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to get advance increments and cash awards for their achievements in the sports events. Though the petitioners were given cash awards, they were not given the advance increments as stipulated in Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioners that such advance increments were WPC No.35924 of 2011 2 granted in the case of other similarly situated persons. However, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected as per Ext.P16. According to the petitioners, Ext.P16 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The case of the first petitioner is that the Government order Ext.P1 has been cancelled as per Ext.P17. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits thereof. However, the counsel for the petitioners points out that Ext.P1 is dated 27.8.1992. The advance increments were due to the petitioners for their achievements during the years 1993-1994 to 1998-1999. Ext.P17 has been issued only on 13.10.2000. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners cannot be denied the benefits of Ext.P1 by placing reliance on Ext.P17 Government order of the year 2000. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader. 5. Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent reads as follows: WPC No.35924 of 2011 3 “As per Ext.P17 Government have cancelled the advance increment sanctioned to the first place winners in the All India Civil Services Tournament. The petitioners 1 and 2 were granted cash awards of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively for getting Ist place in All Indian Civil Services Power lifting championships. The petitioners submitted representation to the third respondent and their representations were forwarded to the Government for consideration, since the Government are the competent authority to grant advance increments. Later the first petitioner was given Rs.4,000/- and the 2nd petitioner was given Rs.3,000/- for securing first place in 4 and 3 Tournaments as per Order No.A1-400/98 dated 24.3.2004 of the Director, Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram. A photostat copy of the above said order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). The request for advance increment was not conceded as the Government withdraws the sanction of such advance increment.” 6. It is clear from the above that the first respondent does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits of Ext.P1. The only dispute is that Ext.P1 has been subsequently cancelled by Ext.P17. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the achievements of the petitioners are during the various years commencing from 1993-1994 to 1998-1999. During the said period, Ext.P1 was very much in operation and WPC No.35924 of 2011 4 applicable to them. Therefore, there is no justification for denying to the petitioners, the benefit of advance increments that is sanctioned by Ext.P1. 7. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that by Ext.P17, what has been done is to effect a modification to Ext.P1 and therefore, Ext.P1 can now be read only as modified by Ext.P17. However, the modification having been effected only in the year 2000, the same is not available to resist a claim for the period during which such modification was not available. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P16 is held to be unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 8. This writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P16 and directing the first respondent to sanction the advance increments claimed by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P1 as it stood before the modification effected by Ext.P17. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy css/ P.S.TO JUDGE