IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20035 of 2009(Y)
1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION
... Petitioner
2. K.MANOHARAN THAMPI, JUNIOR INSPECTOR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 20035 OF 2009 (Y)
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
First petitioner is an Association of the Employees of the 3rd
respondent and the 2nd petitioner is one of its members. Their
grievance is mainly regarding Ext.P5. It is stated that by Ext.P2,
the Pay Revision Committee submitted its report, which inter alia
provided the principles of pay fixation, where it was stated that
the arrears from 1.1.2005 is limited to 10% instead of 15% of
fitment benefit. According to the petitioners since the receipt of
Ext.P2, the employees have been receiving the benefit on that
basis. Subsequently, Ext.P3 Government Order was issued
implementing Ext.P2, but however providing that arrears will be
limited to 10% of the basic pay. As a result of the aforesaid
provision in Ext.P3, the benefits which were already received by
the workmen, were in excess of what was provided therein and in
order to resolve the contradiction between Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 to
the above extent, petitioners filed Ext.P4 representation before
the first respondent. The matter is pending consideration of the
first respondent and at that stage, the 3rd respondent has issued
WPC 20035/09
:2 :
Ext.P5, directing recovery of the amount received by the
employees in excess of what is provided in Ext.P3. It is in these
circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the only
prayer that is pressed before me is for a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as
expeditiously as possible and to direct that Ext.P5 and identical
communications be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile.
3. I heard the Government Pleader on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2 and also the Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents 3 and 4.
4. Having regard to the grievance of the petitioners as
highlighted in Ext.P4 and in view of the recovery that is now
proposed by Ext.P5 and other identical communications issued in
this behalf, I feel that it is only appropriate that the first
respondent shall consider Ext.P4.
5. Therefore there will be a direction to the first respondent
to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of
production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this
WPC 20035/09
:3 :
writ petition, with notice to the 1st petitioner and the 3rd
respondent. It is directed that in the meanwhile, recovery
pursuant to Ext.P5 and similar other communications issued by
the 4th respondent shall be kept in abeyance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp