Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Mary Supriya P.M.

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021WA/1556/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ appeal filed by the State. The bench held that the Government Single Judge correctly interpreted Government Decision No.4 to Rule 37(b) and directed the re-fixation of the petitioner's pay to include the increment she would have received had she not been promoted earlier.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Single Judge directing re-fixation of pay with consequential increment benefits were upheld and restored.

State of Kerala Vs Mary Supriya P.M. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1556 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2020 IN WP(C) 14753/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY WING), HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE RDD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶13

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 4 AND 5 IN WP(C):

¶15

1 MARY SUPRIYA P.M. AGED 48 YEARS W/O.RAJAN V.M., HSST (JR.), MALAYALAM, O.L.F.HSS, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM - 682 007 (RESIDING AT VALLAYIL HOUSE, DESOM P.O., ALUVA – 2).

¶16

2 THE PRINCIPAL O.L.F.HSS, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM - 682 007.

¶17

3 THE CORPORATE MANAGER CARMELITE TERESIAN CONGREGATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

¶18

:2:

¶19

W.A.No.1556 of 2021

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD SRI.NAZEER HUZAIN.H SRI.T.R.VISHNU

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:3:

W.A.No.1556 of 2021

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶26

The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2020 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.14753 of 2020.

¶27

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

¶28

The writ petitioner who was appointed by transfer from the post of H.S.A in an aided school to the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) had approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to re-fix her pay by taking note of the provisions of Part-I KSR regarding fixation of pay. It would appear that the petitioner was appointed as H.S.A (Malayalam) on 01.06.1998. While continuing as such she had been granted time bound higher grades in the post of H.S.A and the pay scale in which she was drawing pay at the time of her promotion as H.S.S.T

¶29

:4:

¶30

W.A.No.1556 of 2021

¶31

(Junior) was the scale of Rs.35,700-75,600. The scale of pay of H.S.S.T (Junior) at the relevant time was Rs.32,300-68,700. The promotion of the petitioner was thus from a junior post in which she was drawing a higher pay than the starting pay applicable in the scale for H.S.S.T (Junior,) the promoted post. The petitioner was accordingly granted protection of pay at Rs.51,600/- on appointment to the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) but she was not granted the benefit of the additional increment in the post of HSA as contemplated in Decision No.4 to Rule 37 of Part -I KSR. On the contrary, the Government took the view that upon her promotion as H.S.S.T (Junior), and after re-fixing her pay at a stage in the pay scale applicable to H.S.S.T (Junior), the benefit of the next increment would accrue to her only on 01.01.2019 in the scale of pay applicable to H.S.S.T (Junior).

¶32

The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found force in the contention of the writ petitioner that, by virtue of Government Decision No.4 to Rule 37 of Part -I KSR, the petitioner was entitled to a re-fixation as contemplated in the last sentence in Rule 37(a), which was referred to in Government Decision No.4, and accordingly, she had to be granted the benefit of an additional increment in the scale of pay that she was drawing in the post of H.S.A and her pay in the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) re-fixed accordingly with

¶33

:5:

¶34

W.A.No.1556 of 2021

¶35

effect from 01.03.2018, the date on which she would have got the additional increment in the post of H.S.A had she continued as such. The writ Petition was, therefore, allowed by directing the Government to grant the petitioner the benefit of re-fixation of pay in the scale of pay of H.S.S.T (Junior) with effect from the date of promotion and as provided in Government Decision No.4 under Rule 37(b), and the petitioner was directed to be granted the scale of pay of Rs.52,800/with effect from 16.01.2018 and a further increment with effect from 01.01.2019.

¶36

In the appeal before us, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge erred in granting the additional increment in the scale of pay applicable to H.S.A to the petitioner since by that time, the petitioner had already been promoted as H.S.S.T (Junior) and further increments could be availed only in that post, and in the pay scale attached to the said post. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention of the learned Government Pleader, for we find, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, that the Government Decision No.4 under Rule 37(b) is unambiguous when it envisages the re-fixation of the petitioner's pay by including the increment that would have accrued to the petitioner with effect from 01.03.2018, had she continued in the said post. We, therefore, see no

¶37

:6:

¶38

W.A.No.1556 of 2021

¶39

reason to interfere with the directions of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶43

mns

State of Kerala v. Mary Supriya P.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Mary Supriya P.M.

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

Alisha.a.B., Vs Union of India

Najma Vs Union of India

Sobha .T.K Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Markose V.T.

The Secretary, M.a.College Association Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Joy Mathew