Dismissed

M.R.Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016WP(C)/30918/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court judge dismissed a writ petition by an executive school assistant seeking arrears of pay from the initial re-option date. The court held the petitioner was bound by the Government Order of 05.01.2012, which limited arrears to the date of application filing.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without granting further relief; no variation in the Government Order's terms of arrears was made.

M.R.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 30918 of 2010 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.R.SUNIL KUMAR,

¶8

HGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL, BALARAMAPURAM, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 30918 of 2010 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED SCALE TOGETHER WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2010.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE NOTE FOR CIRCULATION.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

-----------------------------------------------W.P.C.No.30918 of 2010

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5 orders as per which he was denied opportunity to make a re-option for the Pay Revision, 2004. According to the petitioner, by denying him this opportunity, his juniors are drawing a higher scale of pay and that he is imminently prejudiced by the fact that his immediate junior, Mr.D.R.Aji has been drawing a higher salary than him. He, therefore, prays that his pay should be stepped up with that of Mr.D.R.Aji. I notice that even though this specific averment and relief has been made and sought in this writ petition, this mentioned Mr.Aji has not been made a party to this proceedings.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Maitreyi Hegde and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶30

It has been brought to my notice by Ms.Maitreyi Hegde that Government has, pending this writ petition, issued a an Order on 05.01.2012 granting opportunity to the persons placed like the petitioner to make the re-option as a one time

¶31

W.P.C.No.30918/2010

¶32

¶33

measure subject to certain conditions. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has thus exercised re-option and that his pay has been equalized with that of his juniors with effect from the date on which he made the re-option. It is however, submitted that as per the terms of the said Government Order, the arrears on account of re-option will be paid only from the date of filing of the re-option and the petitioner submits that he should be given the arrears notwithstanding such term in the said order.

¶34

I have examined the order that is produced before me across the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order is very clear that an option has been granted as a last chance to the persons placed like the petitioner on certain very specific conditions. One of the conditions is that the arrears on account of the re-option will only be paid from the date of filing of the re-option. Petitioner having availed of the opportunity of making a re-option as per the said order will be bound by the terms of the order unless such terms are varied or modified in a procedure accepted in law. Admittedly, as of today there is no variation in any of the terms of the said order. The petitioner

¶35

W.P.C.No.30918/2010

¶36

¶37

cannot, therefore, claim any further relief in this writ petition without challenging or otherwise impugning the Government Order dated 05.01.2012, if he is so advised. Leaving open such liberty to the petitioner to impugn any of the terms of the Government Order, if he is so advised and if it is permissible under the provisions of the law, I dispose of this writ petition without making any further orders.

¶38

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I order no costs and the parties are directed to suffer the respective costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

W.P.C.No.30918/2010 4

M.R.Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Sunil Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Haridasan Vs the Secretary

Pavitran Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Sadanandan Vs the Geologist

Manilal K Vs State of Kerala

A.N.Kishor Kumar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Anr.

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala