IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18103 of 2009(G)
1. KERALA CO-OP. EMPLOYEES FRONT,
... Petitioner
2. K.GANGADHARAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OP. HOUSING
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.18103 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
First petitioner is an Association of the Employees of
the 3rd respondent and the 2nd petitioner is one of its
members. Their grievance is mainly regarding Ext.P5. It is
stated that by Ext.P2, the Pay Revision Committee
submitted its report, which inter alia provided the
principles of pay fixation, where it was stated that the
arrears from 1.1.2005 is limited to 10% instead of 15% of
fitment benefit. According to the petitioners since the
receipt of Ext.P2, the employees have been receiving the
benefit on that basis. Subsequently, Ext.P3 Government
Order was issued implementing Ext.P2, but however
providing that arrears will be limited to 10% of the basic
pay. As a result of the aforesaid provision in Ext.P3, the
benefits which were already received by the workmen, were
WP(c).No.18103/09 2
in excess of what was provided therein and in order to resolve
the contradiction between Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 to the above
extent, petitioners filed Ext.P4 representation before the first
respondent. The matter is pending consideration of the first
respondent and at that stage, the 3rd respondent has issued
Ext.P5, directing recovery of the amount received by the
employees in excess of what is provided in Ext.P3. It is in
these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the only
prayer that is pressed before me is for a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as
expeditiously as possible and to direct that Ext.P5 and
identical communications be kept in abeyance in the
meanwhile.
3. I heard the Government Pleader on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2 and also the Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Having regard to the
grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in Ext.P4 and in
WP(c).No.18103/09 3
view of the recovery that is now proposed by Ext.P5 and other
identical communications issued in this behalf, I feel that it is
only appropriate that the first respondent shall consider
Ext.P4.
4. Therefore there will be a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from
the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a
copy of this writ petition, with notice to the Ist petitioner and
the 3rd respondent. It is directed that in the meanwhile
recovery pursuant to Ext.P5 and similar other communications
issued by the 4th respondent shall be kept in abeyance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.18103/09 4