Partly allowed

M. Ranjith v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2017WP(C)/2629/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order denying the petitioner as a Lower Primary School Assistant the benefit of notional fixation of pay in a revised scale due to belated probation declaration. The Government was directed to reconsider the audit objection and pass a speaking order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P7 order set aside; Government directed to reconsider Exhibit P5 objection and pass a speaking order within two months taking note of Rule 10; interim stay of recovery continued.

M. Ranjith 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2629 of 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.RANJITH, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, M.M.AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHELOOR, P.O.PUNNATHALA, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676519.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679571.

¶14

5. THE HEADMASTER, M.M.AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHELOOR, P.O.PUNNATHALA, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM-676552.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 2629 of 2014 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY ALONG WITH FORM OF OPTION.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY ALONG WITH FORM OF OPTION DATED 13.6.2011.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION HIGHER GRADE DATED 1.4.2012.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 20.3.2013.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27-3-2013 WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.5361/2013/G.EDN. DATED 10.12.2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.18578/2007 DATED 12.12.2011.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)31231/2000-R DATED 16.9.2009.
RESPONDEN	TS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶26

W.P(C).No. 2629 of 2014

¶27

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th February, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exhibits P5 and P7 orders and for a direction to the respondents to grant higher grade to the petitioner with effect from 29.6.2012. The petitioner had entered service as LPSA on 29.6.2004 and his probation was declared on 29.6.2005. His first increment was sanctioned and his pay was fixed as Rs.4090/- in the prerevised scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090. The petitioner contends that going by the Rules appended to Government order No.G.O (P).No.145/2006/Fin. dated 25.3.2006, the petitioner will be entitled to change over to the new scale and benefit of fixation of pay notionally. His probation had not been declared as on the date of his option. The petitioner relies on Rule 10 of the Rules for fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale appended as Annexure 2 to the pay revision order dated 25.3.2006.

¶30

Exhibit P5 objection was raised stating that the petitioner's fixation of pay at Rs.4090/- with effect from 1.6.2005 was erroneous, since his probation was declared only on 29.6.2005. The claim on the basis of Rule 10 was not

¶31

¶32

WP(C).2629/14

¶33

specifically raised in Exhibit P6 revision preferred by the petitioner. In the result, Exhibit P7 order has been passed stating that the reoption facility could not be granted to the petitioner and the amounts are liable to be refunded.

¶34

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

¶35

It is clear from a reading of the Rules for fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale especially Rule 10 thereof that the petitioner would be entitled to notional fixation of pay counting the increment accrued, but withheld due to want of declaration of probation. Rule 10 of the Rules for fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale appended to Government order dated 25.3.2006 reads as follows:

¶36

“10. An employee whose increment is withheld for want of declaration of probation on 1.7.2004 or on the date of change-over to the new scale will also be allowed the benefit of fixation of pay, notionally counting the increment accrued but withheld, in relaxation of Rule 37(B(b), Part I Kerala Service Rules, subject to the condition that the next increment after such fixation will be allowed only after he is declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation and the period of approved service required to earn an increment.”

¶37

¶38

WP(C).2629/14

¶39

This aspect ought to have been considered by the Government while passing orders on the revision preferred by the petitioner. In the result, Exhibit P7 order is set aside. It is directed that the Government shall consider the objection raised by the petitioner to Exhibit P5 audit objection taking note of Rule 10 of Annexure 2 Rules for fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale appended to Government order dated 25.3.2006 referred to above and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interim stay of recovery granted by this Court by order dated 27.1.2014 shall remain in force and recovery shall be subject to orders to be passed by the Government as directed above.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶42

vgs17/2

M. Ranjith v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ranjith 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hareesh P. Vs State of Kerala

Vasantha a. Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Prasanna Vs State of Kerala and Another

Mammen Varghese Vs Amit Meena

S.Dileep Vs State of Kerala

S.Shylaja Vs State of Kerala