Allowed

C.K.Koyammu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016WP(C)/4033/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to fixation of pay under Rule 28 A at Rs.2000-3200 upon regular promotion as Senior Superintendent. Respondents' orders denying this scale were set aside, directing re-fixation of pay, pension, and calculation of arrears within four months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits set aside to extent; pay re-fixed at Rs.2000-3200 from 20.08.1992; pension re-fixed; arrears to be calculated and paid within four months.

C.K.Koyammu 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No. 4033 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K.KOYAMMU, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT(RETD.) P.S.M.O.COLLEGE, R/AT.C.K.HOUSE, VENNIYUR PO., VALAKULAM, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).No. 4033 of 2009 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTTE 6-52798/92/COLL.EDN DATED 17.11.1992 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH PAY FIXATION STATEMENT
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.G1-915/92 DATED 14.12.1992 OF THE PRINCIPAL.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NOT.ESTT.E6.68489/92/COLL.EDN DATED 11.1.1993 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.27154/D3/04 DATED 4.2.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2006 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.06.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1510/08/H.EDN DATED 07.10.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009

¶26

Dated this, the 30^th day of September, 2016.

¶27

J U D G ME N T

¶28

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for an order or direction calling for records leading to Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P7 and to quash the same to the extent those orders deny scale of pay to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Superintendent with effect from 20.08.1992. Consequential declarations and directions for payment of amounts including arrears of salary and revised pensionary benefits are also prayed for.

¶29

The petitioner was initially appointed as

¶30

Laboratory Attender in a private college on 15.07.1968. He was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the same college on 01.07.1970, promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 24.06.1975 and as Head Accountant in 1977. On

¶31

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009 : 2 :

¶32

completing 10 years of service as Head Accountant, he was granted 10 years higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Senior Superintendent in the year 1987. He was given a regular promotion as Senior Superintendent with effect from 20.08.1992. The Principal of the college had sought the approval of fixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs.1990/- in the scale of Rs.1370 – 2640 (pre-revised) with effect from 20.08.1992 by Ext.P2. However, this was rejected by Ext.P3. Though the matter was taken up to the Government by Exts.P4 and P7 orders, the requests made by the petitioner were repeatedly rejected which led to the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶33

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent contending that, though the petitioner had completed 10 years service as Head Accountant in 1987, and was granted a higher grade in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent, since the post of Junior Superintendent was not sanctioned to the college where the petitioner is

¶34

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009 : 3 :

¶35

working, he was not entitled to be granted the higher grade in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent. It is further stated that the fourth regular promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent was granted to the petitioner before completing a total service of 25 years and therefore, he is not entitled to fixation of pay under Rule 28 A in the post of Senior Superintendent.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been promoted as Head Accountant in the year 1977. Going by the 1988 pay revision order, he was entitled to the 10 years higher grade in the post of Head Accountant in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent being a qualified hand. The contention that such higher grade could not have been granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the post of Junior Superintendent was not sanctioned to the college in

¶38

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009 : 4 :

¶39

which the petitioner worked cannot hold good for the simple reason that the said post was an existing post in the regular line of promotion in private colleges. The fact that the said post was not sanctioned to the college where the petitioner worked, cannot affect the eligibility of the petitioner for such a promotion which was his eligibility as per the pay revision orders in force. The further contention that, since he had already been granted higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent, he was not eligible for fixation in the scale of pay of Senior Superintendent on his regular promotion as such, cannot also be accepted. The learned Government Pleader has not brought to my notice any provision of law or binding order which could disentitle the writ petitioner for claiming a fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Senior Superintendent on his regular promotion as such.

¶40

In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the refusal on the part of the respondents to

¶41

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009 : 5 :

¶42

grant the fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Senior Superintendent on regular promotion as requested by him is illegal. The question of notional fixation as per G.O.(P) 968/87/Fin. dated 17.11.1987 need not be considered in the instant case since it is clear that the grade promotion granted to the petitioner in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent in 1987 was regular and is liable to be upheld. In the above circumstances, on regular promotion as Senior Superintendent in the year 1992, the petitioner was entitled to the fixation of pay under Rule 28 A in the scale of pay at Rs.2000 – 3200. He would also be entitled to the benefits of the pay revision orders of 1992 in respect of the post of Senior Superintendent. In the above circumstances, Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P7 to the extent they deny scale of pay in the cadre of Senior Superintendent at Rs.2000 – 3200 with effect from 20.08.1992 are set aside. The respondents shall re-fix the pay of the petitioner with effect from 20.08.1992 in the scale of pay of Rs.2000 –

¶43

W.P.(C).No.4033 of 2009 : 6 :

¶44

The pension and pensionary benefits shall also be refixed accordingly. All the consequential arrears shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner, within a period of four months on receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶46

Bb/01/10/2016

¶47

[True copy]

¶48

P.A to Judge

C.K.Koyammu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Koyammu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Ramakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

United India Insurance Officer'S Vs Union of India

Amalarpava Mary Vs State of Kerala

Harish Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Cine Exhibitors' Assn. Vs the Manager, Film Division

Kunhukuttan Vs Tahsildar, Ottapalam