High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew Thomas vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 1 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mathew Thomas vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 1 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 38085 of 2007(H)


1.  MATHEW THOMAS ,MACHINE OPERATOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA  REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

3. THE DIRECTOR COMMON FACILITY SERVICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.N.MATHEW

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :01/01/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
            W.P.(C)s. 38085/2007 & 38089/2007
                        --------------------
          Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008

                        JUDGMENT

Petitioners in both these cases are employed in the

Industries Department. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4

order passed by the third respondent fixing their pay in

the post of Machine operators with effect from 19.9.1998.

They have challenged the same before the Government as

per Ext.P5 submitted on 8.10.2007 pointing out the

anomaly which crept in Ext.P4. They refer to Exts.P1,

P2 and P3 judgments to contend that they are entitled to

fixation of pay in the scale of pay of Machine operators as

on 19.9.1998 in the scale of Rs.1200-2040.

2. After having heard the learned Government Pleader

and having gone through the averments in the writ

petition as also Ext.P5, I am of the view that the first

respondent has to take a decision on Ext.P5.

3. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of

directing the first respondent to look into Ext.P5, hear the

W.P.(C)S.38085 & 38089/2007
2

petitioners and take a decision keeping in mind Exts.P1

to P3 judgments, within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If

petitioners’ claims are found acceptable, obviously

enforcement of Ext.P4 will be subject to the decision

taken by the Government as aforementioned.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs