IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 24891 of 1998(L)
1. P.P.MOHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :03/01/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.NO.24891 OF 1998
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner joined the service of the third respondent
Service Co-operative Bank in 1964. That Bank was categorised
as class VI at the time. That Bank was later classified to be a
class I Bank. Such classification was also confirmed by this
Court. Thereafter, the bank resolved to extend the benefits given
to Government servants, to the employees of the bank also.
However, the statutory authorities took the stand against the
establishment. As of now, the promotional scale or revised scale
that the petitioner is entitled to, fall for consideration as per the
impugned order, Ext.P12. The refixation was held to be
applicable to the basic D.A. only. Accordingly, the Government
concluded that the basic D.A. as on 31.3.1984 cannot be allowed
to be calculated on a scale of pay which is not an extent on that
day. The said view was on the premise that GO(P) 101/86/Co-op
dated 25.11.1986 allowed refixation only on the basic D.A. But
when revision of pay is ordered, there is no reason why the
OP24891/98 2
revision of D.A. could not be effected, particularly when the
employee, third respondent, had resolved to give the benefit of
revision.
2. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are
quashed and it is declared that the petitioner would be entitled
to revised scale of pay from 1.7.1984 to 30.6.1996 on the basis of
fixation of pay in Exts.P4 and P5. Consequential revision of
pensionary benefits shall also due to him. Benefits on the basis of
this order shall be released by the third respondent within an
outer limit of a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
csl