IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24642 of 2003(H)
1. B.P.SREEDHARAN, RETIRED SPECIAL GRADE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA,
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :14/02/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24642 of 2003
----------------------------------------------
Dated 14th February, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed mainly with the following
prayers :-
(i) “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the respondents to restore the pay in
the case of the petitioner as fixed in the orders A-101/92(1)
dated 28.12.1992 dated 28.12.2002 of the Taluk Panchayat
Officer, Perinthalmanna and A6-4848/93(3) dated 15.2.1994 of
the Taluk Panchayat Officer, Kozhikode and in Ext.P3 and to
recalculate the terminal benefits due to him based on the pay
thus restored and to revise, re-fix and disburse all the terminal
benefits due to the petitioner including arrears of pension,
commuted value of pension and DCRG, based on such re-
fixation;
(ii) Declare that the Government letters Exts.P10 and P11 to
the extent those letters direct the scale of pay on sanctioning 25
years’ grade after 1992 pay revision as Rs.1,760-3,050/- instead
of Rs.2000-3200 and directs 28A fixation with reference to lower
post are illegal and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari
or other appropriate writ, order or direction to that extent.”
Learned Government Pleader, referring to the counter affidavit
submits that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the fixation
and that is why, he had consented to the recovery of excess pay
drawn by him, in case the fixation was found to be irregular at a
later stage. The writ petitioner is no more and his legal heirs are
impleaded as the additional petitioners 2 to 4. In the nature of
WP NO.24642/03 2
the view I propose to take in this case, I do not think that the
matter should be gone into on merits since one of the contentions
taken by the writ petitioner is that in several cases, the impugned
fixations though not sustained, recovery was not made.
2. In the case of several persons, they got the pay
restored, in implementation of the directions issued by this Court.
One such instance is in the case of one Sri.Unnikrishnan Nambisan
covered by judgment in O.P.No.23068/98. Yet another instance is
of Sri.M.Bhaskaran covered by the judgment in
O.P.No.23305/2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to
my notice a few other judgments (O.P.No.32086/01, WPC
Nos.25873, 23466 and 22064 of 2003). If the benefits could be
thus granted to the similarly situated persons in implementation
of the directions issued by this Court, I do not find any justification
in denying a similar treatment to late Sri.Sreedharan, the writ
petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring
that the writ petitioner (late Sri.Sreedharan) who retired as
Special Grade Secretary will also be entitled to similar treatment
as given to the persons covered by the judgments referred to
above. Accordingly, his pay will be restored and the withheld
benefits will be disbursed to the additional petitioners 2 to 4,
WP NO.24642/03 3
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. In order to enable the respondents to work out the
relief as above, the impugned Exts.P4, P5 and P6 are quashed.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, J
———————————————-
W.P.(C)No. of 2002
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 14th February, 2007.