Writ petition challenging the rejection of a re-option request regarding pay revision. The court held that the relying authority failed to consider the relevant provision, Rule 7(2), and directed reconsideration of the matter.
Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to reconsider the matter applying Rule 7(2) and pass orders within three months.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 2409 of 2007 (R)
PETITIONER(S):
SREEKALA C.R. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
3. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.
R1,3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 2409 of 2007
Dated this the 24th June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard learned for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the leaned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
2
WP(C).2409/07
3
WP(C).2409/07
the matter taking note of the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the Rules for Fixation of Pay contained in the Pay Revision Order dated 25.3.2006. To enable such re-consideration, Exhibit P4 is set aside. The Government shall hear the petitioner and pass orders on the request for re-option submitted by the petitioner. Orders as directed above shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ANU SIVARAMAN
vgs25/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to exercise re-option in view of the date of retrospective promotion taking effect prior to the pay revision order?
Whether Rule 16 applies to the facts of the case or whether Rule 7(2) is the relevant provision?
Whether the impugned order rejecting the re-option request was passed after considering the applicable rule?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SREEKALA C.R.
STATE OF KERALA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
