IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5600 of 2007(N)
1. JESSYAMMA SEBASTIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/10/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
======================
W.P.(C).No.5600 of 2007
=============-===========
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2006 as a
lecturer in an aided College. The Petitioner’s grievances in the
writ petition is that he has not been granted Senior Scale taking
into account his prior broken periods of service put in before
regular service. The petitioner had broken periods of service as
follows:
19.01.1984 – 16.03.1985
23.07.1990 – 25.01.1991
02.08.1995 – 13.03.1996
2. She started regular service from June 1996 onwards.
Petitioner’s contention is that as per Ext.P2 he is entitled to have
his prior broken periods of service also computed for the
purpose of eligibility for Senior Scale as per Exts.P2 and P3. The
same has been denied to her on the ground that as per G.O.(P).
No.171/99/H. Edn. dated 21.12.1999, only those prior service of
not less than one year continuous service would count for Senior
Scale and Selection Grade. The petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
W.P.(C).No.5600/2007
2
i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of
direction commanding the 2nd respondent to disburse the
revised UGC salary and arrears on the basis of the revised
UGC scale to the petitioner in the promoted post of Lecturer
Senior Scale with effect from 03.10.2001 to 31.03.2006
including the pensionary benefits covered as per Ext.P1 within
a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble court.
ii)To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get U.G.C pay
revision and salary arrears to the post of Lecturer Senior
Scale with effect from 03.10.2001 to 31.03.2006 including the
pensionary benefits covered as per Ext.P1.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that after
the earlier Government Order of 1990 recognizing broken
periods of service also for the purpose of granting Senior Scale
and Selection Grade was replaced by G.O.(P).No.171/99/H. Edn
dated 21.12.1999, only those broken periods of service extending
to one year or more continuously would only be eligible for the
purpose of Senior Scale and Selection Grade. I have considered
the rival contentions. Admittedly, even after computing broken
periods of service the petitioner would not be eligible for Senior
Scale before the 1999 Government Order came into force.
Therefore, the petitioner’s right has to be considered in
W.P.(C).No.5600/2007
3
accordance with the 1999 Government Order. As per 1999
Government Order, for the purpose of counting of broken
periods of service for the purpose of Senior Scale and Selection
Grade that service should have been of continuous service of one
year or more. Admittedly none of the broken service of the
petitioner extends to one year or more.
4. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of
W.A.No.197 of 2006 to argue for the proposition that broken
periods of service of less than one year duration also would
count for the purpose of Senior Scale and Selection Grade.
5. But on a reading of that judgment, I find that the
judgment does not in absolute terms state that all broken periods
of service even if or less than one year continuous duration can
be reckoned for the purpose of Senior Scale and Selection
Grade. What the judgment says in para 4 is as follows:
” On a plain reading of the above paragraph, it can be seen
that paragraph 7.1 gives the benefit of counting of past service
rendered in various scientific organisations provided the
appointment was not ad-hoc or in the leave vacancy of one year
duration as provided under paragraph 7.7. But even in that
case, the ad-hoc service will be counted provided paragraph 7.
(a), 7(b) and 7(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the restriction
W.P.(C).No.5600/2007
4
imposed as per paragraph 7.7 namely, that ‘ the appointment
was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year
duration’ for counting of any past service will apply only if the
candidate is seeking the benefit of counting of past service as
per para 7(1) of the order. The appellants have no case that the
writ petitioners claimed the past service rendered in any of the
organisations made mention of in para 7.1 of the order for the
purpose of the benefit conferred under the notification for senior
scale. If so, para 7 has no application to the present case. Thus,
no case is made out for interference with the judgment of the
learned Single Jude.”
6. The petitioner has no case that the petitioners service
is anything other than those mentioned in para 7.1 of the
Government order. Therefore that judgment has no application
to the petitioner.
In view of the above findings, there is no merit in the
contention of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is
dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs