IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 23074 of 2007(V)
1. C.K.KOYAMMU, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :27/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 23074 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner retired from an aided college at Tirurangadi on June
30, 2003 while he was working as Senior Superintendent. According
to the petitioner, he joined service in the college as Lab Attender in
the year 1968. Thereafter, he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk
with effect from July 1, 1970 and was promoted as Upper Division
Clerk on June 24, 1975. He got promotion again in the year 1977and
was granted Higher Grade in 1987. He was again given a regular
promotion as Senior Superintendent with effect from August 20, 1992
while he was drawing basic pay of Rs.1,830/- in the scale of
Rs.1370-2660. Petitioner further claims that he was entitled to
fixation under Rule 28A Part I KSR at Rs. 1990 on promotion as
Senior Superintendent.
2. His grievance is that he was not given the benefit of pay
revision of the year 1992. His request in this regard was rejected
ultimately by the Government, as revealed from Ext.P4. It appears
WPC NO.23074/07 Page numbers
that petitioner’s successor was in fact given the benefit for which
petitioner had been clamouring for, as could be seen from Ext.P5.
3. Learned counsel submits that the stand taken by the
Government is a clear instance of hostile discrimination. I do not
propose to deal with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner at
this stage in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that petitioner will be satisfied if
an appropriate direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take a
decision on Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner, in
which he has highlighted all his grievances and the relevant aspects
of the issue.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that as far as Ext.P5
is concerned, it might have been a mistake. He further submits that
an appropriate decision will be taken in the matter after considering
the entire issue in detail, and if necessary, Ext.P5 order will also be
reviewed by the Government.
In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P6 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the
WPC NO.23074/07 Page numbers
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent No.1 shall
consider under what circumstance Ext.P5 order was issued giving
the benefit which the petitioner was denied. The beneficiary of
Ext.P5 shall also be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, if the
Government decides to review the said order. Needless to mention,
petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity to be heard when
Ext.P6 is being considered. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy
of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before
respondent No.1 for compliance.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.23074/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007