Disposed

Salih.C.M. v. State

Kerala HC30 Sept 2009WP(C)/13394/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-member Kerala High Court bench directed the respondents to verify petitioners' representations regarding provisional service eligibility for salary revisions. The court ordered a review of grants for increments and higher grades before any recovery action or pay re-fixation could be contemplated.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to verify representations and pass reasoned orders within three months before any action to review increments or recover pay.

Salih.C.M. Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 13394 of 2009(T)

PETITIONER(S):

SALIH C.M., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK C.M., AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT GRADE-I, KRISHI BHAVAN, KAKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

K.MUHAMMED IQUBAL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. AMMAD K., AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT GRADE-I, KRISHI BHAVAN, PANANGAD, VATTOLI BAZAR P.O., BALUSSERY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

K.A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT GRADE-I, STATE SEED FARM, PUDUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

THE AUDIT AND ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

SR GP P.NANDAKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.GIRI, J

¶21

W.P.(C).13394/2009

¶22

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2009

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioners had rendered service as Agricultural Assistants on a provisional basis, prior to commencing service in the same post against the retirement vacancy with effect from 9.10.1990, 14.5.1990 and 17.5.1990 respectively. Their provisional service was also reckoned, for the purpose of increments and higher grades which were sanctioned then. They contend that steps have now been taken by the respondents for recovering the benefits of annual increment and the time bound higher grade sanctioned and disbursed to them, by proceeding on the premise that the provisional service earlier rendered by them ought not to be taken into account for the purpose of increments and time bound higher grade.

¶25

The provisional service rendered in the same post, carrying the same scale of pay, by persons who were absorbed into regular service prior to 1.10.1994 is eligible to be taken into account for the purpose of grant of increments and higher

¶26

W.P.(C).13394/09

¶27

¶28

grades. The fact that the pay scale of the post in question in which service was rendered on a provisional basis had been revised pursuant to the pay revision orders brought into force from time to time, would not make a difference in the situation, is the law down by a Bench of this Court in Jose Jacob v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 873) . But the question as to whether these factual aspects are satisfied by the petitioners are to be verified by the appropriate authority. Thus, Exts.P8, P8(a) and P9 representations by the petitioners are pending before the respondents.

¶29

What is apprehended by the petitioners is the re-fixation of the pay and recovery of alleged excess pay. In my view, it is only appropriate that their representations are considered and orders passed before any such action is contemplated.

¶30

I heard learned Government Pleader also in this regard. 2^nd respondent shall therefore, look into Exts.P8 P8(a) and P9 after notice to the petitioners and pass reasoned orders thereon, within three months from the date of receipt of a

¶31

W.P.(C).13394/09

¶32

¶33

copy of this judgment. This shall be done before any action is taken, to review the grant of increments and higher grades in favour of the petitioners, if any such steps are contemplated.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶35

V.GIRI, Judge

¶36

mrcs

Salih.C.M. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salih.C.M. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lt.Col.v.C.Poulose Vs Union of India

Gayathri V.K Vs State of Kerala

G.Rajeevkumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

State of Kerala Vs Smitha Jose & Others

Beena George Vs the District Programme Manager & Ohthers

C.Leela Vs the State of Kerala