State Of Kerala vs Benedict Harock on 22 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 277 of 2009()


1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

                        Vs



1. BENEDICT HAROCK, AMBATT HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :22/09/2009

 O R D E R
             KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
            R.P.No.277/2009 in W.A. No.1851/2005
               ----------------------------------------------
                  Dated 22nd September, 2009.

                               O R D E R

Kurian Joseph, J.

This is a review petition at the instance of the

appellants. The Writ Appeal was dismissed. The issue pertains to

the claim made by the respondent/writ petitioner for the third

higher grade. In the writ petition, it is brought to our notice that

the essential grievance of the writ petitioner was regarding the

junior drawing a higher pay, whereas the direction given by the

learned Single Judge was to grant the third higher grade. The

fact remains that the writ petitioner has been promoted to the

post of Skilled Assistant Grade II and he has undergone a change

in the scale of pay twice in the said post. However, as far as the

incumbents covered by Exts.P8 and P9 are concerned, they are

directly recruited to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade II and they

have been granted three time bound grade promotions on

account of the stagnation in the scale of pay. In that process,

though juniors, they have been drawing a higher scale of pay

than that of the writ petitioner. That under law is impermissible,

and the latest ruling of the Apex Court on that point is reported in

RP NO.277/09 2

Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board

and others [(2009)3 SCC 94]. Therefore, the review petition is

disposed of clarifying and modifying the judgment under review

and the judgment under appeal to the effect that the writ

petitioner shall only be entitled to the equal pay as that of the

incumbent covered by Ext.P8 from the date concerned.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH &

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

———————————————-
R.P.No.277/2009 in W.A. No.1851/2005

———————————————-

O R D E R

Dated 22nd September, 2009.