Partly allowed

State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government v. Joseph John

Kerala HC17 Jun 2022WA/263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the Single Judge’s judgment in a writ petition concerning pay scale fixation for a typist. Finding the lower court did not adjudicate the challenge to the departmental communication denying the claim, the matter was remitted. The writ petition was closed without prejudice to the petitioner’s right for future reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside. Writ petition closed without prejudice. Matter remitted for fresh consideration.

State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 263 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2021 IN WP(C)

¶9

26717/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1-3 IN W.P.(C):

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶14

ADV.A.J.VARGHESE SR. GP

¶15

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(c):

¶16

1 JOSEPH JOHN,

¶17

U.D.TYPIST, SACRED HEART COLLEGE, THEVARA, COCHIN, PIN - 682013

¶18

2 THE MANAGER, SACRED HEART HEART COLLEGE, THEVARA, COCHIN, PIN – 682013

¶19

SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SR GP

¶20

SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶25

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

¶26

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2022.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

¶30

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.26717 of 2013. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Parties are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

¶31

The petitioner was working as a Lower Division Typist in an aided college from 01.06.1982. He was promoted as Upper Division Typist on 13.07.1987. On completing 10 years service, he was sanctioned a higher grade on 13.07.1997 and on completing 23 years of service, he was sanctioned another higher grade on 01.06.2005. While so, the pay and allowances of the staff of the educational institutions have been

¶32

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022 3

¶33

revised by the Government as per Ext.P4 order based on the recommendations of the 9^th Pay Revision Commission. Four time bound higher grades on completion of 8, 15, 22 and 27 years of service are provided for in terms of Ext.P4 order. It was, however, clarified by the Government later in Ext.P5 order that since the posts of Senior Grade Typist and Selection Grade Typist were merged in terms of the report of the 9^th Pay Revision Commission, those who have completed 22 years of service before 01.02.2011 and continuing in the post of Selection Grade Typist and who have secured three promotions are not entitled to the third higher grade provided for in Ext.P4 order. Instead, it is stated in Ext.P5 order that they are entitled to the scale of Rs.16180-29180 with effect from 01.02.2011. Purportedly in the light of Ext.P4 order, the Manager of the College assigned to the petitioner the pay scale Rs.1618029180 with effect from 01.02.2011 without fixation benefit and forwarded the said proposal to the second respondent for approval. The proposal was returned by the second respondent

¶34

¶35

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶36

in terms of Ext.P11 communication stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the scale of Rs.16180-29180 for the time being. In Ext.P4 order, it is provided that if there is a promotion post in respect of the categories of posts (entry) coming under the pay range from Rs.8730-13540 to Rs.16980-31360 and its scale of pay is higher than the time bound higher grade proposed, then the qualified incumbent will be given the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of promotion as time bound higher grade. On 16.07.2013, on a representation submitted by the petitioner, the Government has clarified as per Ext.P13 order that the benefit of the said clause will not be available to the staff of the college where such promotion posts are not available. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 communication and Ext.P13 order. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he is entitled to the scale Rs.18740-33680 with effect from 01.02.2011. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction the said scale to him with effect from 01.02.2011.

¶37

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶38

¶39

The learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner who received two higher grades on completion of 15 years and 23 years is entitled to the next higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Fair Copy Superintendent viz, Rs.18740-33680 and the same is denied to him on the premise that there is no post of Fair Copy Superintendent in the college, and consequently allowed the writ petition, quashed Exts.P11 and P13 orders and directed the official respondents to extend the said scale to the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge that the writ appeal is filed.

¶40

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents who preferred the appeal as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

As noted, what was essentially under challenge in the writ petition was Ext.P11 communication, in terms of which the proposal made by the Manager for approval of the fixation granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order was

¶42

¶43

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶44

returned. As per Ext.P6, the petitioner has not been assigned the scale of Rs.18740-33680 with effect from 01.02.2011 which was granted to him in terms of the impugned judgment. On the other hand, as noted, what was granted to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P6 order is only the scale 16180-29180 with effect from 01.02.2011. The only question that could have been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in the case was as to whether Ext.P11 communication was sustainable or not. The learned Single Judge has not considered the said question. Having been confronted with the said situation, the only option left to this court was to remit the matter for fresh consideration. At that point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as he has not been assigned the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680 with effect from 01.02.2011 by the Manager, the writ petition can be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised, for appropriate reliefs as regards the benefits of Ext.P4 order.

¶45

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶46

¶47

In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised, for appropriate reliefs as regards the benefits of Ext.P4 order.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

¶52

YKB

¶53

¶54

Writ Appeal No.263 of 2022

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶57

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RESPECT OF THE STAFF PATTERN OF THE NON-TEACHING STAFF OF THE SACRED HEART COLLEGE. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22749/2014 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1469/2016 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 855/2018.

State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government v. Joseph John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government v. Joseph John

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

M/S.C.S.Company Vs K.S.E.B

M/S.C.S.Company Vs the K.S.E.Board

State of Kerala Vs Bushara.M

State of Kerala Vs Sreelal K.V (Minor)

The State of Kerala Rep. by the Secretary to Government Vs the Manager

State of Kerala Vs the Manager