Partly allowed

P.G.Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2009WP(C)/18765/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his pay revision options and non-payment of terminal benefits. Court upheld the audit objection citing irregularity in dates of option but directed respondents to refix pay at minimum scales within three months and release terminal benefits and pension.

What did the court decide?

Pay refixed at minimum of promoted posts within 3 months; terminal benefits and pension to be released within 1 month thereafter.

P.G.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 18765 of 2006(H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

P.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, WAYANAD.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR FOR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.18765/06

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 11.7.2002. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 7.2.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETIITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENTORDER DT 28.6.1997. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 19.3.2004 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 4.11.2003. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 13.5.2004 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 4.1.2005. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 3.5.2005. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(c) NO.31245/2005 DT 9.11.2005.

¶24

EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.109876/C2/06/FIN. DT 4.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18765 OF 2006 (H)

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2009

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner commenced his service as a Junior Accountant. He was promoted as Treasurer w.e.f. 5/2/1979. On completion of 10 years, he was extended the higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-1830 w.e.f. 5/2/1989. That scale was the scale applicable to Selection Grade Accountant, to which post, petitioner was later promoted w.e.f. 8/8/1994, as a result of which, the promotion did not involve any change in the scale of pay.

¶33

Meanwhile 1992 pay revision was implemented and the petitioner opted for the benefit of the pay revision w.e.f. 16.8.95. He was thereafter promoted as Junior Superintendent on 8/7/97. The 1997 pay revision was implemented w.e.f. 1/3/1997 and, on his promotion, the petitioner opted for the benefit of 1997 Pay Revision w.e.f. 01/02/98. On his promotion as Sub Treasurer Officer w.e.f. 4/1/2002, when the pay was to be authenticated by the 2^nd respondent, Ext.P1 audit objection was raised by the Accountant General that the options exercised by the petitioner

¶34

WPC 18765/06

¶35

:2 :

¶36

for the benefit of 1992 pay revision and 1997 pay revision were irregular and that has to be rectified.

¶37

Petitioner represented against the audit objection by filing Ext.P2 enclosing Ext.P3 Government Order. Subsequently, he was promoted as District Treasury Officer w.e.f. 9/6/2006 and again as Deputy Director of Treasuries. While continuing in that post, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30/4/2008.

¶38

In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by Ext.P10, the final order passed pursuant to Ext.P1 audit objection and he also complains that despite having given promotions, the pay has not been refixed in the higher posts and that terminal benefits have not been released so far.

¶39

The first question that arises is regarding the validity of Ext.P1 audit objection, which culminated in Ext.P10 order. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Accountant General was of the view that the option exercised by the petitioner for the 1992 pay revision w.e.f. 16/8/95 was inadmissible , as according to the pay revision order, his pay could be fixed in the revised scale w.e.f. 8/8/94 only. In so far as the 1997 pay revision is concerned, it is

¶40

WPC 18765/06

¶41

:3 :

¶42

stated that the petitioner could have either opted the scale of pay of the lower post as on 1/3/97 or the promoted post w.e.f. 8/7/97 and not w.e.f. 1.2.98. It is this objection which has been upheld by all authorities including the Government by Ext.P10 order.

¶43

Counsel for the petitioner attempted to sustain the options exercised by him and canvassed that the audit objection raised is erroneous. Learned counsel relied on Exts.P3 and P7. Ext.P3 is a Government Order dated 28/6/1997. A reading of this order shows that by this order, Government allowed employees who got time bound higher grade on or after 1/3/92 to opt for time bound higher grade on a date of their choice and to continue in the pre-revised scale till the date of such option. Thus, the option contemplated in Ext.P3 order is one exercised as a result of the extension of time bound higher grade.

¶44

On the other hand, the petitioner opted for 16/8/95 following his “promotion” as Selection Grade Accountant w.e.f. 8/8/94 for coming into the 1992 pay revision. Therefore, the option exercised by the petitioner is not as a consequence of the extension of time bound higher grade and therefore his case is not protected by Ext.P3 Government Order. In so far as Ext.P7 is

¶45

WPC 18765/06

¶46

:4 :

¶47

concerned, that also shows that the case covered by the said order is not the same as that of the petitioner.

¶48

Further, Clause 7 of the Appendix to Annexure III of the 1997 Pay Revision Order shows that the employees who were promoted on or after 1/3/1997 cannot be allowed to exercise option for the scale of the feeder post beyond the date of such promotion. If that be the position, the option exercised by the petitioner following his promotion as Junior Superintendent w.e.f. 8/7/97, was to a date beyond the date of his promotion and therefore such option is against Clause 7 of Annexure III to the 1997 Pay Revision.

¶49

However, it is now pointed out that realising the mistake in the option exercised by the petitioner, by Ext.P6, though belatedly, the petitioner has opted for the benefit of 1997 Pay Revision w.e.f.1/3/97.

¶50

Therefore, in such circumstances, audit objection raised by the Accountant General deserves to be upheld and Ext.P10 Government Order needs to be affirmed and I do so.

¶51

The other complaint of the petitioner is that refixation of pay consequent on the promotions from the post of Sub

¶52

WPC 18765/06

¶53

:5 :

¶54

Treasury Officer onwards has not been given. This contention of the petitioner is answered in para 15 of the counter affidavit filed, where it is stated that pay at the minimum of scale of the promoted posts have been authorised.

¶55

In view of the complaint now raised that his pay has not been refixed from the post of Sub Treasury Officer, necessarily, respondents 1 and 2 will have to refix the pay of the petitioner, quantify the benefits that are due to him and release his terminal benefits as well. This the respondents shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

Needless to say that once the process is completed, the pension that is due shall be paid within one month and arrears will also be released to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶57

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶58

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶59

P.G.Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapna v.Nair Vs Smt.Chitra

P.Haridasan Vs Secretary, Rta, Kzd. (Taxation Officer)

K.G.Ajayakumar Vs M.R.Amalamma

K.S.E.Board,Rep.by Its Chairman & Others Vs C.K.Narayanan and Another

Velayudhan P.& Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mathiri Davidson Vs Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps