IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/19TH SRAVANA, 1944
W.A.NO.506 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.2.2021 IN W.P(C).NO.4593/2020 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
BY SRI.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 M.SATHEESAN,
S/O. MADHAVAN T, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
2 ASHAKUMAR M.T,
S/O. K.P THANKAPPAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
3 REJI N R,
S/O. NEELAKANDAN RAGHAVAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
4 SURESHKUMAR A.D,
S/O.A. N DHARMAJAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 2 ::
ERNAKULAM
5 SHANMUGHAN K.P,
W/O. PONNAPPAN ACHARI, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
6 RAGHUVARAN V.A,
S/O. AYYAPPAN V.V, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
7 JAYAPRAKASAN P.K,
S/O. KRISHNAN P.K, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
8 JITHESH ALPHONSE,
S/O. ALPHONSE FRANCIS, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
9 PRADEEP R,
S/O. RAJAPPAN CHETTIYAR, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
10 K. SHAJI,
S/O. AYYAPPAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
11 SANTHOSHKUMAR S,
S/O. SADASIVAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
12 FAZALUDEEN A,
S/O. M. ABDULAZEEZ,WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
13 KUMARAN K,
S/O. NARAYANAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
14 VINODKUMAR K,
W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 3 ::
S/O. KOCHATHAN T, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
15 BHASKARAN P.C,
S/O. P. K CHANDRAN, WATCHMAN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
16 THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM 682
031
BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
BY ADV.SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI(K/160/1985)-25840
BY ADV.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (K/000445/1990)-13559
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 4 ::
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar., J.
The State of Kerala, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and the Secretary, Finance Department are the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.02.2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.4593 of 2020. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:
Consequent to an anomaly being noticed in the pay scales extended to the respondents herein, who are working as Watchmen in the Kerala High Court Service, and the pay scale extended to Watchmen in the Secretariat Service, a recommendation was made, based on the recommendations of the 9 th Pay Revision Commission, for extending the scale of Rs.9940 - 16580 to the Watchman in the Kerala High Court Service, corresponding to the similar scale that was recommended for Watchman in the Government Secretariat. The Government, however, sanctioned only the scale of Rs.8500 - 13210 to W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 5 ::
the Watchman in Kerala High Court Service while extending the higher scale of Rs.9940 - 16580 to the Watchman of the Secretariat. The anomaly was once again pointed out to the State Government through the recommendation of the Chief Justice dated 9.1.2012. The Government, however, rejected the said request for parity in pay scale by Government Order GO(MS) No.196/2012/Home dated 16.7.2012. This prompted the Chief Justice to seek a review of the Government decision through a letter No.A1-1830/2010/J5/FW dated 11.1.2013. While so, some High Court Librarians, who were similarly aggrieved by a pay revision anomaly consequent to the 9 th Pay Revision approached the Division Bench of this Court through writ petitions, which culminated in a decision of the Division Bench directing the State Government to reconsider the pay revision benefits extended to the said Librarians. It was the resultant decision of the Division Bench in K.G.Rajamohan v. State of Kerala - [2013 (3) KLT 803] that was followed by this Court in the judgment dated 24.07.2014 in W.P. (C).No.25293 of 2013 pertaining to the respondents herein, who are Watchmen in the Kerala High Court Service. When the directions in K.G.Rajamohan (supra) were not acted upon by the Government, a Contempt of Court Case [Con.Case (C).No.945 of 2014] was preferred by the said Librarians, which was closed by judgment dated W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 6 ::
07.01.2015, recording the submission on behalf of the State Government that the State Government would consider the anomaly, occasioned in extending pay revision benefits to the Librarians, along with the pay revision benefits contemplated under the 10 th Pay Revision.
2. It would appear that when the 10 th Pay Revision Commission recommended pay scales, the specific case of Librarians, Watchman and certain other categories did not engage the attention of the Pay Revision Commission and consequently, the anomalous situation in the pay scales noticed above were not addressed through the Pay Revision Commission recommendations. This prompted the Chief Justice of this Court to write to the Government through letter No.DO.No.FW/J3- 49631/2014 dated 06.11.2015, to consider the case of those categories of employees, including that of the Watchman in the High Court Service, for the extension of the revised scale of Rs.9940 - 16580 [under the 9th Pay Revision] and the corresponding revised pay scale [under the 10th Pay Revision]. When, despite the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the State Government did not rectify the anomaly in pay scales in respect of the Librarians as also the Watchman, the Librarians approached this Court through a re-opening of the W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 7 ::
contempt case that was earlier closed through judgment dated 07.01.2015. Through judgment dated 02.11.2016 in Cont. Case (C).No.1766 of 2016, the Division Bench of this Court sought the views of the State Government and thereafter, the State Government passed a Government Order GO(MS) No.315/2016/Home dated 14.12.2016 granting parity in pay scales to the Librarians under the 10 th Pay Revision but with effect from 01.07.2014, the date of coming into force of the 10th Pay Revision. In other words, the benefits due to them under the 9th Pay Revision were not extended to them. The Librarians therefore moved this Court in the contempt petition, yet again, and by order dated 06.10.2017 in COC.No.1766 of 2016, this Court directed the contemnors to purge the contempt by extending the benefits of the 9th Pay Revision to the Librarians. It was thereafter that the Government Order GO(MS).No.215/2017/Home dated 26.10.2017 was passed rectifying the anomaly in pay revision for the Librarians under the 9th as well as 10th Pay Revisions by extending the benefits due to them from 01.07.2009 onwards.
3. In the instant case, although the judgment dated 24.07.2014 in W.P.(C).No.25293 of 2013 of this Court followed the directions of the Division Bench in K.G.Rajamohan (supra) pertaining to Librarians, W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 8 ::
the Watchman of the High Court service was extended a revised pay scale of Rs.17500 - 39500 with effect from 01.07.2014. The said pay scale was the restructured pay scale corresponding to Rs.19000 - 39500 that was recommended by the Chief Justice based on the 10 th Pay Commission recommendation. The benefits corresponding to the 9th Pay Revision for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2014 in the scale of Rs.9940 - 16580, which was the scale applicable to Watchman in the Secretariat service under the 9th Pay Revision was not extended to the Watchman in the High Court Service. Taking note of the said fact, this Court by an order dated 29.10.2018, in Cont. Case (C).No.444 of 2018 observed that the appellants herein could purge themselves of the contempt only if they extended the pay scale of Rs.9940 - 16580, under the 9 th Pay Revision, to the respondents herein for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2014. It was clarified that in making the said payments, the appellants herein would only be complying with their obligations pursuant to the issue that had already been adjudicated by this Court in K.G.Rajamohan (supra), with regard to Librarians, which was followed by this Court in the case of Watchmen in the judgment dated 24.07.2014 in W.P.(C).No.25293 of 2013. Taking note of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the Government would consider the W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 9 ::
observations of this Court in the Contempt of Court Case and comply with the directions with regard to the extension of the benefit of the 9 th Pay Revision to the respondents herein for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2014 in the revised pay scale of Rs.9940 - 16580, the Contempt of Court Case was posted for further orders on 12.12.2018. The Contempt of Court Case was eventually closed finding that the Government had extended the benefit of the revised scale applicable to Conference Hall Watchman at the Secretariat to the Watchman of the High Court. As it was noticed by this Court that in doing so, the Government had restructured the pay scale applicable to Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat and extended only the benefit of the restructured lower scale to the Watchman of the High Court, while closing the Contempt of Court Case, liberty was reserved to the respondents to agitate the legality/propriety of the new scales extended to them in appropriate proceedings.
4. It is based on the liberty reserved to the respondents herein by this Court in the Contempt of Court Case that the present writ petition was preferred by them impugning the Government Order that granted a scale different from what was recommended by the Chief Justice in their favour for the 9 th Pay Revision as also the 10 th Pay W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 10 ::
Revision.
5. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter, found force in the contention of the respondents that even if the pay scale of Conference Hall Watchman of the Secretariat had been restructured and reduced subsequently, the said reduced scale did not have to automatically apply to the Watchman in the High Court since that would go against the mandate of the recommendation of the Chief Justice of this Court, which was essentially to extend to the Watchman of this Court the same scale as applicable then to the Conference Hall Watchman of the Secretariat prior to the restructuring of the said post. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that while extending the similar benefit in respect of the 9 th Pay Revision, the appellants herein had effectively adopted a scale which was the pre-revised scale corresponding to the restructured scale subsequent to the 10 th Pay Revision for the post of Conference Hall Watchman. The learned Judge found that it was the pay scales applicable to Conference Hall Watchman before the restructuring of the post, and as applicable pursuant to the 9th Pay Revision and the 10 th Pay Revision, that had to be extended to the Watchmen in the High Court.
W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 11 ::
6. Before us, the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants is essentially that by granting the scale of pay, applicable to Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat, albeit after restructuring the Government had complied with the request of the learned Chief Justice for extending a parity in scale of Watchman in the High Court with that of a Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat. He would further point out that even in the affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court in the Writ Appeal, there is an indication that no further grievance existed with regard to parity of pay scales of the Watchman of the High Court with that of the Conference Hall Watchman of the Secretariat.
7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel Sri.Jaju Babu, assisted by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the respondents, that the Government could not have entertained any doubt as regards the recommendation of the Chief Justice with regard to extension of parity of pay scale to the Watchman of the High Court. It is in particular pointed out that both in relation to the 9 th Pay Revision as also the 10th Pay Revision, the pre-revised scale and the revised scale adopted for the purposes of the High Court Watchman, in purported extension of parity with Conference Hall Watchman of the W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 12 ::
Secretariat, is the pay scale after restructuring of the post of Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat and reduction of the latter's pay scale. Since the restructuring and consequential reduction of the pay scale of the Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat was much later in point of time than the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the stand of the Government cannot be legally countenanced.
On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that for the reasons already stated by the learned Single Judge, the appeal must necessarily fail. We might only add that the recommendation of the Chief Justice with regard to extension of parity in pay scales has to be read and understood in the backdrop of the circumstances that prevailed at the time of making the recommendations. There is no other way in which the Government could have understood those recommendations. The documents on record would clearly reveal that it was taking note of the pay scale of Rs.19000 - 39500 extended to Conference Hall Watchmen in the Secretariat that a recommendation was made by the Chief Justice to extend the same scale to the Watchman in the High court. Inasmuch as the Government has since accepted that there had to be a parity in pay scale between the Watchman of the High Court and the W.A.NO.506 OF 2021 :: 13 ::
Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat, it was incumbent upon the Government to extend the said scale of 19000 - 39500 to the Watchman in the High Court in relation to the 10 th Pay Revision. Further, in relation to the 9 th Pay Revision, it was incumbent upon the Government to extend the corresponding pay scale of Rs.9940 - 16580 for the period between 01.07.2009 and 30.06.2014. The subsequent restructuring of the pay scale for the Conference Hall Watchman in the Secretariat could not have had any bearing on the pay scales applicable to the Watchman in the High Court. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the well considered and well-reasoned judgment of the learned Singe Judge. The Writ Appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE prp/