Review petition filed against a judgment on pay revision. The bench held that no error was apparent on the face of the record regarding the Local Fund Audit Department's decision. The review petition was dismissed.
The review petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
RP.No. 820 of 2012 (Y) IN WPC/22032/2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENTDATED 14-08-2012 IN WPC.22032/2009
REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
K SAMBASIVAN, HARI SREE, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY P.O COCHIN.
BY ADVS.DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE
SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
LOCAL FUND AUDIT (HIGHER GRADE) COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI 21.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
SRI. T.R. RAJESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
================
R.P. No. 820 of 2012
in W.P.(C) No. 22032 of 2009
====================
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 14.08.2012 on the basis that as per Ext.P8 Ready Reckoner, he is entitled to pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 and the formula for fixation of pay in the revised UGC scale along with a Ready Reckoner were communicated to the Government of Kerala by the Government of India vide letters referred in Ext.P8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Local Fund Audit Department has committed a mistake and has not taken into consideration Ext.P8. In fact the ready reckoner was the very basis of Ext.P2. This Court has considered the matter on the basis of the pleadings and averments in the writ petition, the counter affidavit filed and the records produced and the observations made by the Local Fund Audit Department in relation to pay fixation proposal under 1996 UGC pay revision scheme. I do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of record. In that view of the matter, this review petition is dismissed.
sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
Rv
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment dismissing the petitioner's claim for revised pay as per UGC scale?
SAMBASIVAN, K Hari SREE, KOONAMTHAI
THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
