IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12953 of 2008(P)
1. B.VIJAYAKUMAR, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
... Petitioner
2. RAVEENDRAN, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
3. T.R.ANILKUMAR, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
4. MOLY T.K., LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
5. L.RETNAKUMARI, LABORATORY ASSISTANT,
6. BINDU.S, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
7. P.V.SUSHAMA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
8. SHINY JOSE, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
9. GRACE SEBASTIAN, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
10. SHEELA.V., LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
11. REENA.M.ZACHARIA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
12. SANTHAMMA, LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 12953 OF 2008 (P)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are Lab Technicians Grade II in the Animal
Husbandry Department. In this writ petition, what they seek is to
quash Ext.P8 to the extent IInd Higher Grade in the scale of Lab
Supervisor is declined to them.
2. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P2 order dated
20/7/2007, the scale of Lab Supervisor was ordered to be granted
as second higher grade to similarly situated employees of in the
Animal Husbandry Department working in its Palode
establishment. When the petitioners who are working in other
establishments of the same department represented for the
benefit of Ext.P2, that was ultimately declined by Ext.P8 stating
that the benefit of Ext.P2 will be extended, provided the post of
Lab Supervisor is in existence in the establishment in which the
petitioners are working.
3. Petitioners contend that such a condition is alien to the
scheme for time bound higher grade as reflected in Ext.P9 and
therefore is illegal. It is also contended that the benefit similar to
WPC 12953/08
:2 :
Ext.P2 was extended to Lab Technicians similarly situated who
was working in Palode at a time when the post of Lab Supervisor
was not in existence there. Therefore, they say a different
standard has been adopted in Ext.P8 when they became eligible
and claimed the benefit of Ext.P2.
4. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents are also
relying on Ext.P9 to justify Ext.P8. However, a reading of para 6
of Ext.P9 scheme shows that the absence of posts to deprive the
benefit should be in the department and not in the establishment
of the department in which a claimant is employed. Respondents
have no case that in the Animal Husbandry Department the post
of Lab Supervisor is not in existence. If that be so, going by the
terms of Ext.P9, the condition in Ext.P8 that only if in the
establishment where the petitioners are working, the post of Lab
Supervisor is in existence, can they be given the benefit of Ext.P2,
cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P8 to the extent, which
rejects the claim for scale of Lab Supervisor on the ground that
the post of Lab Supervisor should be in existence in the
establishment where the petitioners are working is set aside.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
WPC 12953/08
:3 :
respondents to draw and disburse second higher grade to the
petitioners in the scale of Rs.10790-18000 in terms of Exts.P2 and
P7 provided the petitioners have completed 16 years and grant
them all consequential benefits, if they are otherwise eligible.
This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within
two months of production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp