Allowed

Ally Tresa George v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2017WP(C)/15410/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition seeking equalization of pay for a senior High School Assistant. The court held that senior employees who received promotions before July 1, 2004 are entitled to pay stepping up if their juniors promoted after that date draw higher salaries, quashing the government order denying the benefit.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P15 order set aside; petitioner entitled to stepping up of pay at par with the 6th respondent with effect from the date the junior was granted higher pay.

Ally Tresa George Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15410 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ALLY TRESA GEORGE, AGED 39 YEARS, WIFE OF JOSEPH KUTTY, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), ST.JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶9

SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUTTANAD, P.O.RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 595

¶15

5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF C.M.I. SCHOOLS, C.M.I. PROVINCIAL HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.

¶16

6. SMT.BINDU C. THOMAS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE), ST.JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULINCUNNU, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 504.

¶17

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

msv/

¶20

WP(C).No. 15410 of 2013 (A)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31-1-2005
EXT.P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE 3 OF G.O.(P)NO.145/2006/FIN. DATED 25-3-2006
EXT.P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED SCALE DATED 20-1-2012
EXT.P4 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE HSA'S SCALE DATED 20-1-2012
EXT.P5 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE DATED 23-9-2006
EXT.P6 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DATED 23-9-2006
EXT.P7 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DATED 20-4-2007
EXT.P8 -	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P9 -	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.522/07()79)/FIN. DATED 25-10-2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P10 -	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.547/09(158)/FIN. DATED 7-12-2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P11 -	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 4-10-2010
EXT.P12 -	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.42887/E3/2011/G.EDN. DATED 1-3-2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P13 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 17-9-2012
EXT.P14 -	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.24384/2012-W DATED 16-10-2012
EXT.P15 -	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1203/2013/G.EDN. DATED 14-3-2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.15410 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2017

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶34

(i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits P12 and P15 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶35

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for stepping up the pay as provided in Exhibits P9 and P10.

¶36

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4^th respondent to allow stepping up of the pay of the petitioner as on 05.06.2006 to that of Smt.Bindu C.Thomas, High School Assistant junior to the petitioner as provided in Exhibits P9 and P10.

¶37

The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School

¶38

Assistant (UPSA) in an aided school on 10.06.1993. She was granted 1^st higher grade in the post after service of ten years with effect from 10.06.2003 by Ext.P1. By Ext.P2 order dated

¶39

25.03.2006, pay revision was effected with effect from

¶40

W.P.(C) No.15410/2013

¶41

¶42

01.07.2004. By Ext.P3, petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.8,790/with effect from 01.06.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs.7990-12930 and at Rs.9190/- in the scale of Rs.8390-13270 by Ext.P4. The 6^th respondent, who was junior to the petitioner in service, was granted grade promotion in the revised scale of pay of UPSA on a date when she completed eight years of service as such. She was granted fixation of pay at Rs.8590/- in the scale of pay of Rs.6680-10790 with effect from 01.06.2005 and her pay was fixed at Rs.9190/- in the scale of pay of Rs.7990-12930 from 01.06.2006. By Ext.P7, her pay was fixed at Rs.9590/- in the higher scale of Rs.8390-13270 with effect from 05.06.2006. This lead to a situation that petitioner's junior was drawing higher pay than the petitioner. Ext.P8 is a comparative table of the pay drawn by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent. Exts.P9 and P10 orders made it clear that the benefit of stepping up of pay is extended to those senior employees who were granted timebound higher grade promotions before 01.07.2004 but draw less pay in the revised scale than that of their juniors who were granted time-bound higher grade promotions on or after 01.07.2004.

¶43

The case of the petitioner and the 6^th respondent

¶44

W.P.(C) No.15410/2013

¶45

¶46

squarely comes within the ambit of Exts.P9 and P10 orders. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext.P11 representation before the Government seeking stepping up of pay at par with her junior with effect from the date when her junior was granted higher scale of pay. By Ext.P14 judgment, this Court directed the Government to consider the claim. However, by Ext.P15 order dated 14.03.2013, the request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner and the 6^th respondent had given option as per 2004 pay fixation on different scales of pay and on different dates and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to stepping up of pay.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶48

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent admitting that the petitioner had continuous service from 10.06.1993 and that the 6^th respondent had commenced service on 05.06.1996 and is therefore junior to the petitioner. It is stated that the pay of the 6^th respondent had been fixed at Rs.8590/- with effect from 01.06.2005 in the revised scale of pay of UPSA and higher grade was sanctioned

¶49

W.P.(C) No.15410/2013

¶50

¶51

on completion of eight years of service. Therefore, her pay was fixed in the scale of High School Assistant (HSA) on promotion with effect from 05.06.2006 at Rs.9590/- in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270. This, admittedly, is higher than the pay drawn by the petitioner in the post of HSA. It is stated that the petitioner was sanctioned higher grade in the post of UPSA on 10.06.2003 i.e. on completion of ten years of service.

¶52

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. Exts.P9 and P10 orders specifically provide for stepping up of pay in case a senior draws a lower pay than junior on account of time bound higher grade promotion drawn by the senior before 01.07.2004 and by the junior in the revised scale after the said

¶53

date. This specifically governs the case of the petitioner and the 6^th respondent.

¶54

The claim raised by the petitioner for stepping up of pay at par with the 6^th respondent is clearly supported by Exts.P9 and P10 orders. In the above view of the matter, rejection of the petitioner's claim for stepping up of pay by Ext.P15 was totally unwarranted. Going by Exts.P9 and P10 orders as well as the statements contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to

¶55

W.P.(C) No.15410/2013

¶56

¶57

stepping up of pay at par with the 6^th respondent with effect from the date when the 6^th respondent was granted higher pay.

¶58

Ext.P15 order is therefore set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to stepping up of pay in terms of Exts.P9 and P10 orders at par with the 6^th respondent with effect from the date when the 6^th respondent was granted higher pay. The respondents shall pass orders granting benefits to the petitioner and the consequential benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶62

smp

Ally Tresa George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ally Tresa George v. the 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

Gopi Vs Velmurugan

Prof.Dr.S.Balaraman Vs State of Kerala

The Corporate Manager Vs the State of Kerala

P.G.Vijayan Vs K.S.B.C. Ltd.

G.Muraleedharan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Other

Velayudhan Kutty M. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University