IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19765 of 2007(C)
1. V.VASUDEVAN, RETD.SKIPPER, VARSHA VIHAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.KURUP
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.19765 OF 2007 (C)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P7.
2. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P4 is concerned, the
grievance of the petitioner is confined to clause 5(2) wherein it is
provided that financial benefits including arrears of salary etc. will
be granted only with effect from 26.2.2007. In WP(c).
No.16475/07 & connected cases by judgment dated 26.8.2009,
this court has already set aside the aforesaid provision in Ext.P4
and therefore the challenge against Ext.P4 stands covered in
favour of the petitioner by virtue of the judgment referred to
above.
3. In so far as Ext.P7 is concerned, by this order, petitioner
has been posted as a Skipper subject to the condition that his pay
will be fixed in the scale 2610-3680 which is applicable to last
grade employees. His complaint is that as a Skipper he was in
command of the vessel enjoying enjoying disciplinary control of
other employees working in the vessel. It is stated that despite
this, in Ext.P7 employees like Assistant Engineer who were
WPC .No.19765/07
:2 :
working below the petitioner in the vessel have been fixed in the
lower scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 where as the petitioner, who
was working in a higher category had been fixed in the scale of
pay as applicable to last grade employees. Ext.P8 is the duties
and responsibilities of a Skipper, which show that the Skipper is
in command of the vessel and enjoy disciplinary control as well. If
that be so, prima facie it would appear that by fixing the
petitioner’s pay at lower scale of pay, as compared even to his
subordinates, he has been discriminatory. Therefore, the
matter needs to be re-examined by the 3rd respondent, duly
adverting to the position held by the petitioner as a Skipper. The
matter shall be considered as above, as expeditiously as possible
within 2 months.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/