IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16002 of 2003(E)
1. S.SADASIVAN PILLAI, U.D.CLERK (RETD.),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
3. THE PRINCIPAL, NM NSS COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :15/06/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.16002 OF 2003
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who joined the service of a corporate
management on 23.9.1971 as an Attender in one of its aided
colleges, attained the age of 50 years by the end of February,
1994. In the mean while, he had been placed as L.D.Clerk and
after he completed the age of 50 years, he was placed as U.D.
Clerk. He retired from service on 28.2.1999. Thereafter, acting
on his representation, by Ext.P3, the Government accorded
sanction for 25 years higher grade to be given to him with effect
from 23.9.1996, i.e., the date on which he completed 25 years of
service after his entry on 23.9.1971. Thereafter, the
Government has issued Ext.P4, by which, the benefit given under
Ext.P3 has been recalled, without giving the petitioner any
opportunity of pre-decisional hearing and by making reference
only to a Government letter dated 8.1.1993, in terms of which,
the Government, through Ext.P4, states that the petitioner was
not entitled to the benefit extended as per Ext.P3.
WPC.16002/03
Page numbers
2. If the entitlement of the petitioner to a higher grade is
dependent on executive orders of the Government, no
Government letter, including the one dated 8.1.1993, could have
deprived him of that, because, a Government letter cannot, in
any manner, modify an executive decision issued by the
Government in the form of a Government Order. Be that as it
may, it is pointed out by the Government in its counter affidavit
that the petitioner having attained the age of 50 years only by
the end of February, 1994, his placement as LDC prior to that
without his securing the statutory qualifications disentitles him
to be considered as a qualified person stagnating in a category
for the purpose of extending to him the benefit of a higher grade.
3. Having regard to the conflict of contentions, it was not a
case where the Government could have finally concluded the
issue without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being
heard. In view of the career details of the petitioner, I also do not
deem it appropriate to decide the case ultimately on merits,
without the petitioner being heard at the highest level in the
executive.
WPC.16002/03
Page numbers
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Ext.P4 is quashed
and a decision de novo shall be taken by the Government within
a period of three months from now. Until then, the status
obtained as per Ext.P3 will continue. However, if decision as
directed above is not taken within the period specified, it shall be
treated that Ext.P4 does not further govern the petitioner and all
consequences shall follow.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
kkb.
WPC.16002/03
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
O.P.NO.16002 OF 2003
JUDGMENT
15TH JUNE, 2007.
=======================