Allowed

Anuja.M. v. the Accountant General

Kerala HC21 May 2010WP(C)/9047/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition, quashing an order fixing the petitioner's pay at a lower scale. The Court held that the petitioner, similarly placed to one in a previous favorable judgment, is entitled to the revised pay scale for Senior Lecturers with Post-Graduate qualification, including consequential arrears.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Exhibit P4; declared petitioner entitled to senior lecturer pay scale benefits and arrears; directed disbursement within three months.

Anuja.M. Vs the Accountant General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 9047 of 2004(B)

PETITIONER:

ANUJA M., LECTURER IN HEALTH EDUCATION, STATE P.E.I.D.CELL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY MR.T.A.SHAJI, ADVOCATE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), O/O. THE A.G. KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, ADDITIONAL SUB TREASURY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.9047/2004

¶20

A P P E N D I X

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. P1 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 31.5.01 OF R2. EXT. P2 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.145/2000/H&FWD DTD. 16.6.00 ISSUED BY GOVT.

¶23

EXT. P3 : COPY OF PAY IN SLIP DTD. 15.1.02 ISSUED BY R3. EXT. P4 : COPY OF PAY IN SLIP DTD. 19.12.03 ISSUED BY R3.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge.

smp

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶29

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.9047 OF 2004

¶30

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2010.

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P4 whereby audit

¶33

objections have been raised regarding fixation of salary as per

¶34

the Government Order Exhibit P2.

¶35

The petitioner has been working as Lecturer in Health

¶36

Education at the time of filing of the writ petition. She is a postgraduate in Sociology with 2^nd class. She has obtained Diploma in Health Education with 1^st class. The petitioner was provisionally promoted as Lecturer in Health Education in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram as per order dated 18.04.1996. She was allowed to join duty in that capacity in the Medical College, Alappuzha by order dated 19.04.1996 of the Principal of the Medical College, Alappuzha. She was later reverted pursuant to the directions issued in O.P.No.7226/96 filed by a rival claimant. Later she was again provisionally promoted as Lecturer

¶37

in Health Education by order dated 14.10.1996 of the

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9047/2004

¶39

¶40

2^nd respondent.

¶41

By Exhibit P1, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the re-designated post of Lecturer in Health Education. Exhibit P2 provides a revised scale of pay to Senior Lecturer (with PG) at Rs.10000-325-15200. As per clause XVII of Exhibit P2, the petitioner exercised her option to come over to the revised scale of pay in the post of Senior Lecturer with PG which was accepted and Exhibit P3 is the pay slip issued dated 15.01.2002. The petitioner drew her salary and arrears as per the said pay slip. It is thereafter by Exhibit P4, salary was refixed in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 of Lecturer (without PG). According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a postgraduate in Health Education and duly qualified for appointment as Lecturer in Health Education.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that challenge against a similar order by another Senior Lecturer in Medico Sociology, Department of Community Medicine, Medical College, Kottayam in W.P.(C) No.2233/2004 was found in her favour by this Court. It is submitted that the situations are

¶43

W.P.(C) No.9047/2004

¶44

¶45

identical. Therefore, the findings rendered by this Court therein will apply to the petitioner herein also.

¶46

A reading of the judgment shows that the petitioner therein also claimed the benefit of pay revision order dated 16.06.2000 (Exhibit P2 herein). Therein the Director of Medical Education took the view that the petitioner was entitled to draw pay and allowances at the monthly rate of Rs.8,000/- only and accordingly the pay was refixed, which was under challenge in that writ petition.

¶47

It is evident from the pleadings referred to in the judgment therein that based on the classification of teachers as medical and non-medical that different pay scales were sought to be implemented. This Court therefore considered various conditions provided in Exhibit P1 to see whether such a classification is permitted. In paragraph 8 therein, this Court held thus:

¶48

“I have perused Ext.P1 Government Order and took the view that Ext.P1 is applicable to all teaching staff irrespective of medical or non-medical Lecturers. Ext.P1 does not restrict its application to

¶49

W.P.(C) No.9047/2004

¶50

¶51

the Lecturers in clinical branch. Ext.P1 confers benefits to Lecturers in Dental, Medical and Pharmaceutical Science Colleges in Kerala. If Ext.P1 confers benefit to Lecturers irrespective of clinical branch or non-clinical branch, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits conferred by it. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for time bound cadre promotion and all other benefits conferred vide Ext.P1 order. Taking into consideration Ext.P1 Government Order, Ext.P9 order is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders, Exts.P3 and P9 are quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits of Senior Lecturers in Ext.P1. It is also declared that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of time bound cadre promotion under Ext.P1 with effect from 1/1/1996 as Assistant Professor and 6/8/1999 as Associate Professor in Medico Sociology. There will be a direction that consequent orders shall be passed by the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”.

¶52

The view taken is that in Exhibit P1 the benefit is

¶53

conferred to Lecturers irrespective of clinical branch or nonclinical branch and therefore, the benefits cannot be denied. Herein the situation is clearly identical. It is evident from

¶54

W.P.(C) No.9047/2004

¶55

¶56

Exhibit P2 that there is no stipulation that the scale will not apply to persons who are not having the Degree of M.B.B.S. A

¶57

particular scale of pay has been given for Senior Lecturer (with P.G). That was granted to the petitioner also.

¶58

It is pointed out that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.

¶59

2233/2004 has become final and the same was implemented also. I respectfully agree with the reasoning stated therein. Since the petitioner is similarly placed, the issue raised herein is covered by the said judgment. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition.

¶60

Therefore, Exhibit P4 is quashed. There will be a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits of pay revision order Exhibit P2. As per the interim order dated 16.03.2004, the recovery consequent to Exhibit P4 was stayed and it was made clear that the petitioner is entitled to salary only as fixed by Exhibit P4. Since Exhibit P4 is quashed, there will be a direction to implement the scale of pay as fixed pursuant to Exhibit P2 and needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled to get all consequential monetary benefits including arrears. Due

¶61

W.P.(C) No.9047/2004

¶62

¶63

benefits will be disbursed within a period of three months from

¶64

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶65

This writ petition is allowed.

¶66

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶67

smp

Anuja.M. v. the Accountant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuja.M. v. the Accountant General

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

Shiny Antony Vs S.S.Anil Kumar

Sindhu K.V. and Another Vs v.Gopinathan

Muraleedharan Nair, Aged 45 Years, Vs Venugopal, Age and Father'S Name Not Kno

Rajamma Vs J.C.Kataria

S.Chandrika Vs K.S.R.T.C. & Others

Nazeema Vs the Kayamkulam Municipality and Others