Allowed

B.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC7 Sept 2009WP(C)/12953/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an administrative order denying Lab Technicians in the Animal Husbandry Department a second higher grade. It held that the absence of posts in the department, not the specific establishment, disqualifies employees. The petitioners were granted the scales and consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to grant the second higher grade scale of Rs.10790-18000 and consequential benefits to eligible petitioners within two months.

B.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 12953 of 2008(P) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------

¶8

1. B.VIJAYAKUMAR, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RAVEENDRAN, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, DISTRICT VETERINARY CENTRE, KANNUR.

¶10

3. T.R.ANILKUMAR, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. MOLY T.K., LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, LIVE STOCK PRODUCT INSPECTING OFFICE, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU.

¶12

5. L.RETNAKUMARI, LABORATORY ASSISTANT, FEED TESTING LABORATORY, CONTRACT HATCHERRY, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

6. BINDU.S, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, DISTRICT VETERINARY CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

7. P.V.SUSHAMA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, DISTRICT VETERINARY CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

8. SHINY JOSE, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, CHIEF DISEASE INVESTIGATION OFFICE, PALODE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

9. GRACE SEBASTIAN, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶17

10. SHEELA.V., LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶18

11. REENA.M.ZACHARIA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, PARIYARAM, KOTTAYAM-21.

¶19

WPC NO.12953/2008

¶20

-2-

¶21

12. SANTHAMMA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶23

RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

-------------------

¶25

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDARY) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶26

2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WPC NO.12953/08

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶32

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PAY SCALES IN THE ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT.

¶33

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1328/07/AD DT 20.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶35

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K2-7215/95-1/ESTT-II DT 23.3.95 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.K2.21065/07/ESTT DT 29.9.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1-15689/07/G.KA DT 31.12.07 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K2.16045/06/ESTT DT 18.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.31081/MHE1/07/AD DT 7.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF ANNEXURE III TO EXT.P1.

¶41

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 16.1.2009.

¶42

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 22.12.2008 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY SRI.JAYAPRAKASAN P.K. TO THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶43

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 31.1.2009 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE TO SRI.JAYAPRAKASAN.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12953 OF 2008 (P)

¶48

=====================

¶49

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2009

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

Petitioners are Lab Technicians Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department. In this writ petition, what they seek is to quash Ext.P8 to the extent IInd Higher Grade in the scale of Lab Supervisor is declined to them.

¶52

According to the petitioners, by Ext.P2 order dated 20/7/2007, the scale of Lab Supervisor was ordered to be granted as second higher grade to similarly situated employees of in the Animal Husbandry Department working in its Palode establishment. When the petitioners who are working in other establishments of the same department represented for the benefit of Ext.P2, that was ultimately declined by Ext.P8 stating that the benefit of Ext.P2 will be extended, provided the post of Lab Supervisor is in existence in the establishment in which the petitioners are working.

¶53

Petitioners contend that such a condition is alien to the scheme for time bound higher grade as reflected in Ext.P9 and therefore is illegal. It is also contended that the benefit similar to

¶54

:2 :

¶55

WPC 12953/08

¶56

Ext.P2 was extended to Lab Technicians similarly situated who was working in Palode at a time when the post of Lab Supervisor was not in existence there. Therefore, they say a different standard has been adopted in Ext.P8 when they became eligible and claimed the benefit of Ext.P2.

¶57

In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents are also relying on Ext.P9 to justify Ext.P8. However, a reading of para 6 of Ext.P9 scheme shows that the absence of posts to deprive the benefit should be in the department and not in the establishment of the department in which a claimant is employed. Respondents have no case that in the Animal Husbandry Department the post of Lab Supervisor is not in existence. If that be so, going by the terms of Ext.P9, the condition in Ext.P8 that only if in the establishment where the petitioners are working, the post of Lab Supervisor is in existence, can they be given the benefit of Ext.P2, cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P8 to the extent, which rejects the claim for scale of Lab Supervisor on the ground that the post of Lab Supervisor should be in existence in the establishment where the petitioners are working is set aside.

¶58

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

¶59

WPC 12953/08

¶60

:3 :

¶61

respondents to draw and disburse second higher grade to the petitioners in the scale of Rs.10790-18000 in terms of Exts.P2 and P7 provided the petitioners have completed 16 years and grant them all consequential benefits, if they are otherwise eligible. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶62

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶63

B.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manager, Amalambika Convent Vs Kerala State Elelctricity Board

T.Thankachan Vs Cheief Engineer (Hrm),K.S.E.B.

Asiante Satelite Communications Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Others

Jose S/O.Abraham Vs State of Kerala & Others

Karnataka State Road Transport Crpn. Vs P. Honniah

South Indian Constructions Vs Kerala Police Housing & Construction Cor