Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Ally Tresa George

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018WA/2110/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed the State's appeal against the Single Judge's order which quashed a departmental order rejecting a senior teacher's claim for pay step-up. The court held that government directives requiring senior pay to be stepped up to that of a junior applied, distinguishing a cited precedent due to the existence of such orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the order allowing the petitioners' claim for pay step-up.

State of Kerala Vs Ally Tresa George — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 2110 of 2017 IN WPC. 15410/2013

¶7

---------------------------------------

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15410/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-02-2017

¶9

APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 :

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J. VARGHESE

¶15

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 :

¶16

1. ALLY TRESA GEORGE, W/O. JOSEPH KUTTY, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(MALAYALAM), ST. JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PULINCHUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶17

2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CMI SCHOOLS, CMI PROVINCIAL HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 027

¶18

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

¶19

BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶21

RKM

¶22

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶23

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶24

W.A.No. 2110 of 2017

¶25

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶29

The State is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2017 allowing W.P.(C).No.15410 of 2013. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein complaining that her claim for stepping up of her salary to that of her junior, the 3^rd respondent herein, was rejected by Ext.P15. Therefore, she sought for setting aside the same. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, and quashed Ext.P15. The appellants are also directed to pass orders in the matter granting the benefits to the first respondent.

¶30

The bare facts necessary to be taken note of for the disposal of this appeal are the following :-

¶31

The first respondent joined service as an Upper Primary School Assistant ('UPSA', for short) on 10.06.1993. She was granted her first time bound higher grade on 10.06.2003. On 02.06.2005, she was promoted as High School Assistant ('HSA', for short).

¶32

W.A.No. 2110 of 2017

¶33

¶34

The 3^rd respondent joined service as UPSA on 05.06.1996. She was granted her first time bound higher grade on completion of eight years' service on 01.06.2006. Thereafter, on 05.06.2006, she was promoted as HSA. Her pay was fixed at Rs.9,590/- in the Scale of Pay of Rs.8390-13270. As per Ext.P3, the first respondent's pay was fixed at Rs.8,790/- with effect from 01.06.2005 in the Scale of Pay of Rs.7990-12930. Thereafter, by Ext.P4, her pay was fixed at Rs.9,190/- in the Scale of Pay of Rs.8390-13270. Thus, the 3^rd respondent is drawing a higher pay than the first respondent. Being the senior, the first respondent claimed that she was entitled to have her salary stepped up to that of the 3^rd respondent. However, by Ext.P15, her claim was rejected. Therefore, she had approached this Court by filing the writ petition challenging the said proceedings.

¶35

According to the first respondent, Exts.P9 and P10 orders issued by the Government were squarely applicable to her case. On the dates of the said Government Order, it is contended that she was entitled to have her pay stepped up. The contentions of the first respondent were opposed by the 4^th appellant, who filed a counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, Ext.P15 was only justified. In view of the fact that, when the 3^rd respondent was granted her higher grade she was a UPSA and the first respondent

¶36

W.A.No. 2110 of 2017

¶37

¶38

was already working as an HSA, she was not entitled to claim any relief in the Pay Scale of HSA on the ground that the first respondent was at that time drawing a higher pay. It was only after the 3^rd respondent was promoted, the disparity in the pay of the two teachers occurred.

¶39

The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that Exts.P9 and P10 Government Orders were squarely applicable to the case of the first respondent and that in the light of the said orders, the first respondent was entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Ext.P15 has been quashed, as already noticed above.

¶40

According to the learned Government Pleader Sri.A.J. Varghese, the stepping up of pay cannot be claimed in all cases where a junior is drawing higher pay than the senior. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in G.C.D.A. v. Shanavas [2010 (1) KLT 598] in support of his contentions. It is the case of the learned Government Pleader that when the 3^rd respondent was granted her higher grade and higher pay, the first respondent had already been promoted as an HSA and was drawing a higher pay than the 3^rd respondent. In view of the above, the first respondent was not entitled to any claim for stepping up.

¶41

W.A.No. 2110 of 2017

¶42

¶43

Adv. V.A. Muhammed appears for the first

¶44

respondent.

¶45

Having heard the respective counsel at length, we are not satisfied that any interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge is called for. The facts of this case are admitted. It is not in dispute that, the 3^rd respondent, who is admittedly the first respondent's junior is drawing a higher pay. The first respondent was granted her first time bound higher grade, only on completion of 10 years' service whereas the 3^rd respondent was granted her first time bound higher grade on completion of eight years' service. The revision of pay had also been implemented in the meantime. By Exts.P9 and P10 orders, Government had directed that in such cases, the pay of the senior is to be stepped up to that of the junior. The said orders would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment appealed against. Ext.P15 was unsustainable and has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. Though the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision in G.C.D.A. v. Shanavas (supra) we find that in the said case, no similar Government Orders like Exts.P9 or P10 were in force. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the said decision is of any help to the appellant in this case.

¶46

W.A.No. 2110 of 2017

¶47

¶48

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is

¶49

accordingly dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

True copy

PA to Judge

RKM

State of Kerala v. Ally Tresa George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Ally Tresa George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Raji E.D

Manager, Junior Basic School, Vettukad Vs State of Kerala

The President Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

The Janakeeya Co-Operative Urban Society Ltd. Vs Reeja.P

Manager Vs State of Kerala