IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23890 of 2010(I)
1. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. P.N.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER,
3. T.N.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.23890 of 2010 (I)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners retired from service as Sub Inspectors of Police. In
this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P5 order dated 20/04/2010
passed by the 1st respondent in pursuance to the directions
contained in Ext.P4 judgment dated 09/06/2009 in
W.A.No.1065/2006.
2. Grievance of the petitioners highlighted before the 1st
respondent was that their juniors are getting higher pay and that
therefore they should also be stepped up applying the principle
equal pay for equal work.
3. However, a reading of Ext.P5 order shows that
consequent on the pay revision when re-options were exercised, the
petitioners did not exercise the re-option, whereas their juniors
exercised re-option and got fixation of pay on that basis. It is
therefore that their juniors happened to get higher pay.
4. In my view, if re-option was not exercised by the
WP(C) No.23890/2010
-2-
petitioners for reasons which are attributable to them and re-option
was exercised by their juniors and they got the benefits thereof,
seniors like the petitioners cannot complain that their juniors are
getting higher pay.
Therefore, in the light of above, I do not find any merit in the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg