This writ petition concerned a plumbing inspector's claim for a higher grade and pay scale. The bench rejected the claim, holding that no government order provided the requested scale and the pay refixation by local fund audit was not illegal.
Petition dismissed; no interference with orders fixing petitioner's pay or determining higher grade.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 21 ST POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 21532 of 2016 (N)
PETITIONER
C N PREMBHASIM
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLISSERI, CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 561.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.R.RAJESH (K)
RESPONDENTS
R1 ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL SC.
R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RON BASTIAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Hr....
WP(C).No. 21532 of 2016 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.31874/2008. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P6 |
A COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECOMMENDING 27 YEARS' HIGHER GRADE TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P9 |
A COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 |
A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P12 |
A COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDEN(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 17-03-2006. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25-03-2006. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 19-06-2007.
// TRUE COPY// P.S TO JUDGE.
Hr....
P.V.ASHA, J.
------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.21532 of 2016
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this writ petition, when he was working as a Plumbing Inspector in the Electrical and Water Section of the Guruvayoor Devaswom.
:2:
W.P.(C) No.21532/16
Devaswom that the petitioner can be granted the scale of pay of Rs.7990-12930 and Rs.18900-24040 in the respective pay revision orders of 2004 and 2009 and the 27 years higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.14620-25280 with effect from 18.11.2012. Petitioner's request for 23 year higher grade, on par with Sri.Prakasan, in the scale of pay of Rs.11070-18480, was rejected as per Ext.P8 order, by the Senior Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, saying that the said scale of pay was not admissible as per Government orders. In Ext.P8 letter it was also stated that the benefit of fixation granted to petitioner under Rule 28A of Part I KSR, while fixing his pay on his promotion as Plumbing Inspector, after giving him 18 years of higher grade, was not correct, and that it was to be fixed under rule 30 of part I KSR. Even though the petitioner submitted another representation, the 1st respondent Devaswom rejected his request as per Ext.P12 order dated 7.12.2015 and informed him that his pay was re-fixed and recovery of excess pay drawn by him for the period from 22.8.2005 to 1.12.2008 was already ordered.
W.P.(C) No.21532/16
:3:
years in the scale of pay of Rs.5650-8790 on 1.12.2004; he was promoted as Plumbing Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090 on creation of that post as per Ext.P1 resolution dated 17.8.2005. On implementation of pay revision orders as per Ext.R1(a) order, petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.7790/- in the scale of pay of Rs.668010790 corresponding to Rs.4000-6090. The post of Plumbing Inspector was not available in Ext.R1(a) or Ext.R1(b) orders. When the Government modified Ext.R1(b) order issuing Ext.R1(c) order dated 19.6.2007, the petitioner was granted 3rd time bound higher grade in the scale of Rs.7990-12930 corresponding to the scale of pay Rs.668010790. Petitioner's claim for 23 years' higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.11070-18450 was considered by the Devaswom and it was found that the Government Orders on pay revision do not provide for such a scale of pay for the post. It is pointed out that Ext.P4 judgment or the order issued in the case of Sri.Prakasan cannot be made applicable in the Devaswom. It is stated that the petitioner has been granted 23 years higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.7990-12960 as well as 27 years higher grade in the scale of pay of rS.14620-25280. It is also stated that since the petitioner's pay was fixed erroneously on his promotion as Plumbing Inspector it was refixed on the basis of the directions issued by the Local Fund Auditor, according to which the petitioner has to remit a sum of Rs.18,081/- towards excess pay
W.P.(C) No.21532/16
:4:
drawn by him.
In the above circumstances, the orders issued by the
W.P.(C) No.21532/16
:5:
respondents fixing the pay of the petitioner or on the grant of higher grades cannot be said to be incorrect. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner was that pay was refixed on the ground that the rule applicable in the case of petitioner while fixing his pay on promotion as Plumbing Inspector was rule 30. According to the petitioner, when he was granted promotion as Plumbing Inspector, he was entitled to get his pay fixed under rule 28A of part I KSR. But it is seen that even when petitioner was granted promotion as Plumbing Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090/- he was already drawing pay in a higher scale on grant of higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.5650-8790 from 1.12.2004 onwards. When promotion was to a lower scale than what he was drawing, the petitioner was not entitled to get his pay fixed under rule 28A. Therefore, there was nothing illegal in the refixation of pay on the basis of the objection raised by the Local Fund Audit, also. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders Exts.P8, P11 or P12.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE
rkc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a 23 years higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.11070-18480 on par with a Plumbing Inspector in a Municipality.
Whether the refixation of pay under Rule 30 instead of Rule 28A of Part I KSR was illegal when the petitioner was promoted to a lower scale than drawn.
C.N. Prembhasim
Guruvayoor Devaswom
Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner
Senior Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
