IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3090 of 2009(P)
1. VALSALA.T,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. HEADMASTER, GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/03/2009
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.3090 of 2009
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Muhammed Shameel, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Ramani, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents.
2. The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Arabic) in the
Government High School, Koduvalli. She entered service on 28.2.1989
and has continuous service since then. The pay and allowances of
Government employees and aided school teachers were revised with
effect from 1.3.1992 as per G.O.(P) No.600/93/Fin dated 25.9.1993. The
said Government order inter alia stipulated that where the junior is
drawing a higher pay, the pay of the senior shall be stepped up and
equated with the pay of the junior and that the increment date of the
senior shall also stand varied.
3. Sri. Jnanam, T.T. entered service on 20.6.1991 in the school
where the petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Physical Science).
She is admittedly junior to the petitioner. Following the 1992 pay
revision, his pay was fixed at Rs.1,380/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-
2200 with effect from 1.6.1992. The petitioner would have come to that
stage only on 1.3.1993, her next increment date. Therefore, as the
WP(C) No.3090/09 -: 2 :-
petitioner’s junior started drawing higher pay with effect from 1.6.1992,
the pay of the petitioner was stepped up applying the stipulation in G.O.
(P) No.600/93/Fin. dated 25.9.1993. The fixation was made way back on
31.5.1994 and the petitioner started drawing higher pay with effect from
1.6.1992.
4. While matters stood thus, the Government issued Ext.P3 circular
to the effect that stepping up of pay can be granted only if the junior is
holding a post in the same category or same post. In other words the
stand of the Government in Ext.P3 was that a H.S.A. (Arabic) cannot draw
the salary of a H.S.A. (Physical Science) if the H.S.A. (Physical Science) is
junior to him for the reason that they are not teachers in the same
category or post.
5. The validity of Ext.P3 was the subject matter of a series of
decisions of this Court. In Exts.P4 and P5 judgments this Court has taken
the view that the stand taken in Ext.P3 is arbitrary and cannot be
sustained. This Court held in the aforesaid judgments that audit
objections based on Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. This Court quashed
Ext.P3 and held that the fixation of pay made before Ext.P3 circular was
issued cannot be upset. The issue raised in the case on hand is in my
opinion, directly covered in favour of the petitioner by Exts.P4 and P5
judgments. Smt. T.B. Remani, the learned Government Pleader very fairly
conceded that the issue raised in the case on hand is squarely covered by
Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. On going through the pleadings and the
WP(C) No.3090/09 -: 3 :-
materials on record, it is evident that Ext.P6 has been issued relying on
Ext.P3 circular. In the light of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court to
which the State of Kerala is a party, Ext.P6 cannot be sustained.
In the result, I allow this Writ Petition, quash Ext.P6 and declare
that fixation of pay made as per Ext.P2 shall not be disturbed except in
implementation of the subsequent pay revision orders.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 30/3