IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 26569 of 2002(K)
1. V.S.MAKKAR (RETIRED PROCESS SERVER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING
4. DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.
5. SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No.26569 of 2002
==================
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered service in the Civil Judicial
Department as a Peon on 22.10.1964. He retired from service on
31.1.1999. He got 13 years’ higher grade on 1.7.1979 and 20
years’ higher grade on 16.9.1985. The Government revised the
scales of pay of Government employees with effect from
1.7.1988 by Government Order dated 1.11.1989. The petitioner
opted for revision of his pay scales in accordance with the pay
revision order. The petitioner’s grievance in this original petition
is that he is entitled to have his pay scales revised in the higher
grades in accordance with the computation in Ext.P3, which was
rejected by Exts.P4 and P7 orders. The petitioner is challenging
Exts.P4 and P7 orders in this original petition.
2. In the pay revision order, Rules 2 and 10 of Annexure
III to the pay revision order, fixation of pay has been described
as thus:
“2. Where the pay of an employee is to be fixed in more than
one post, option will have to be exercised separately in respect of each
such post. If such an officer exercises option within the time limit only
in respect of one scale he will be deemed to have opted for the revisedo.p.26569/02 2
scale/scales with effect from 1st July 1988 in respect of the other
scale/scales.
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
10. Where an employee’s pay has to be fixed in more than
one revised scale, his pay in each such scale will be fixed under these
rules. If, however, the pay admissible to him in the higher scale
(revised) applying rule 28(a)/37, Part I Kerala Service Rules, with
reference to the pay fixed in the lower scale (revised) is higher than
the pay fixed as above, in the higher scale (revised) such higher pay
shall be allowed provided the employee opts to change over to the
revised scale of both the posts with effect from the same date.”
3. The petitioner’s contention is that in view of the above
rules, the petitioner was rightly entitled to have his pay fixed as
computed in Ext.P3.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd
respondent, in which the petitioner’s claim has been controverted
thus:
“The petitioner entered service as Peon on 22.10.66 and late
posted as Process Server on 1.1.68 on the same scale of pay. Since
the scale of pay of Peon and Process Server was identical upto
30.6.88, the petitioner was granted 13 and 20 years reckoning service
as Peon and Process Server with effect from 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985.
With effect from 1.7.88 the post of Process Server was assigned a
higher scale of pay than that of Peon. In order to avoid the anomally of
Juniors appointed as Process Server from the post Peon on or after
1.7.1988 drawing higher scale of pay than that of Seniors appointed as
process server from the post of Peon prior to 1.7.1988, the seniors
were allowed to opt the post of Peon and Process Server with effect
from 1.7.88 in the 1988 Pay Revision orders. The above provision is
not admissible to the petitioner who had already enjoyed two grade
promotions with effect from 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985 reckoning service
as Peon and Process Server prior to 1.7.1988 in view of the provisions
contained in Exhibit R2(a) circular. He was also granted 25 years gradeo.p.26569/02 3
with effect from 23.10.1989 and 30 years grade with effect from
23.10.1994 as admissible to Peons.”
5. I am of opinion that since the petitioner has already
got higher grades prior to 1.7.1979 and 16.9.1985, the only
benefit he can avail of, is fixation of pay in the revised scale.
Admittedly the scales of pay of Peons and Process Servers were
the same prior to pay revision order. It is in the pay revision
order that different scales of pay have been fixed for peons and
process servers. That being so, there is no question of of fixation
of pay of the petitioner in the two scales applicable to Peons and
Process Servers on pay revision. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
o.p.26569/02 4
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
===============
O.P.No.26569 of 2002-K
===============
J U D G M E N T
7th October, 2008
o.p.26569/02 5