IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34080 of 2008(F)
1. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DRAFTSMAN GRADE-I
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
3. SUPERINTENDENT, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34080/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Being a Draftsman Grd.I petitioner was given the scale
of pay of Rs.2060-3200, by Ext.P4 order, which is
equivalent to that of Assistant Lecturer. By Ext.P8, the
second respondent refused to ratify the same, holding the
view that the petitioner was eligible only the scale of pay
of Rs.1640-2900 and it was also ordered that the excess
amount paid will be recovered.
2. Though the petitioner represented against that
order, he was unsuccessful and finally, he approached this
court by filing O.P.No.28208/00. That writ petition was
disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing disposal of Ext.P9
keeping in abeyance the recovery that was ordered. The
representation was finally rejected by Ext.P11. Following
WP(c).No.34080/08 2
Ext.P11 his pay was also revised. Thereafter, relying on
Ext.P13 Government order dated 21.3.1972, by which,
according to the petitioner, the Government recognized
Diploma as an alternate qualification for the post of
Assistant Lecturer petitioner approached this court once
again by filing WP(c).No.25080/01. During the pendency of
that writ petition, petitioner retired from service on
30.6.2005.
3. That writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P14
judgment. In that judgment it was ordered that the
Government shall reconsider Ext.P11, and also consider the
claim of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P13 Government
Order referred to above, which was produced as Ext.P16 in
that writ petition. Accordingly, the Government reconsidered
the matter and issued Ext.P15 declining the prayer sought
for. It is challenging Ext.P15 and praying for consequential
reliefs this writ petition has been filed.
WP(c).No.34080/08 3
4. A reading of Ext.P15 shows that the Government
have not even referred to Ext.P13 Government Order and
therefore the said order is one passed contrary to the
directions of this court in Ext.P14 judgment. For that reason
itself, Ext.P15 order deserves to be set aside and I do so. It
is ordered that the claim of the petitioner raised in Ext.P9
shall be reconsidered by the Government, taking note of
Ext.P13 Government Order referred to above and as
directed by this court in Ext.P14 judgment. Orders as above
shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
In the meanwhile, the second respondent is directed
that the admitted amount of DCRG due to the petitioner for
the service that she had rendered, shall be released within 4
weeks from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
WP(c).No.34080/08 4
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along
with a coy of the writ petition before the respondents 1 and
2 for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.34080/08 5