High Court Kerala High Court

A.Abdul Rasak vs The State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.Abdul Rasak vs The State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28253 of 2008(L)


1. A.ABDUL RASAK, RESIDING AT KOKKATTU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/11/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                   W.P.(C) No. 28253 OF 2008
                                   &
                   W.P.(C) No. 21396 OF 2009
                =====================

           Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

In these writ petitions, the challenge is against the re-

fixation of pay of the petitioners. It is now pointed out by both

sides that identical issues have been considered by this Court in

the judgment in WP(C) No.17307/08 and connected cases, which

were disposed of by judgment dated 24th of September, 2009 with

the following directions:

“In view of the elaborate discussion that I have

undertaken, I consider it appropriate to encapsulate my

conclusions, as hereunder:

(1) The petitioners, who were not qualified to be

appointed to the post of Technical Assistant, coming

within the purview of the Special Rules for Kerala

State (Survey and Land Records), were not entitled

to be granted third time bound higher grade in the

scale of pay applicable to a Technical Assistant, on

completion of 25 years of service.

(2) The petitioners were entitled to third time bound

higher grade on completion of 25 years of service in

the scale of pay immediately above the scale of pay

as fixed in the revised orders, which is in consonance

W.P.(C) No. 28253 OF 2008
&
W.P.(C) No. 21396 OF 2009
:2 :

with Clause 3(b)(vii) of G.O.(P)No.930/93.

(3) The revision of the scale of pay and consequent

revision of the pension being drawn by the

petitioners as effected in the orders impugned in the

present cases are upheld, subject to the directions

issued hereunder:

(a) The respondents are restrained from

effecting recovery of any amounts,

consequent upon the impugned re-fixation of

pay and revision of pension, effected in the

case of these petitioners till and inclusive of

the date of this judgment.

(b) The petitioners, in each one of these cases,

may file a representation before the

Government within two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment, invoking

Rule 7 of Part I of the KSR, and request the

Government to exempt them from the re-

fixation of pay and consequent revision of

their pension and also to see that the pension

originally fixed in each of their cases is

continued.

(c) The Government shall consider the

representations filed by the petitioners

sympathetically and in the light of the

observations contained in this judgment on

W.P.(C) No. 28253 OF 2008
&
W.P.(C) No. 21396 OF 2009
:3 :

humanitarian considerations and take a

decision as early as possible.

(d) It is made clear that the Government will be

entitled to indicate, if they decide to accept

the case of the petitioners, that the

Government’s decision need not be treated

as a precedent in any other case.

(f) The interim order in each one of these cases

will continue to operate, till a decision is

taken by the Government on the

representations filed by the petitioners as

aforementioned.

(g) But, it is made clear that recovery for the

period, subsequent to the date of this

judgment, will abide by the decision to be

taken by the Government as aforementioned.

2. Facts being identical, the petitioners are also eligible

for the benefit of the aforesaid directions and it is so clarified.

3. In so far as WP(C) No.28253/08 is concerned, petitioner

has a case that the amount mentioned in Ext.P6 viz., Rs.15,702/-

has been withheld from his pension and that in view of this

judgment, the said amount is to be disbursed. In the light of the

judgment referred to above, if any amount is withheld, that is

W.P.(C) No. 28253 OF 2008
&
W.P.(C) No. 21396 OF 2009
:4 :

liable to be disbursed. Therefore, there will be a direction to that

effect.

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp