Kerala High Court
Laisamma.N.D vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2021
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 37/2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
LAISAMMA.N.D
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.JAMES PINTO, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEATH NURSE, PHC MOOPAINADU,
VADUVANCHAL P.O., WAYANAD- 673581, RESIDING AT PINTO HOUSE,
THAZHE ARAPATTA, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD, KERALA- 673577.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695035.
3 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH),
MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD- 670645.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
===============================================
OP(KAT)No.173/2019
(Arising out of the order dated 08.01.2019 in O.A.(EKM) No.37/2019 of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram(Addl.Bench, Ernakula)
===============================================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2021
JUDGMENT
A.Badharudeen, J.
Laisamma N.D., who is the applicant in OA (EKM) No.37/2019 before
the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Addl.Bench, Ernakulam), is the
petitioner herein and she impugns the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, whereby her claim to get increment under
Decision No.2 to Rule 33 Part I KSR was disallowed.
2. The respondents herein are the respondents in the OA.
3. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the OP/applicant in the OA and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty,
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention
raised before the Tribunal to canvass the position that Decision No.2 to
Rule 33 Part I KSR as it originally stood before deletion, provided
consideration for provisional service for increment purpose of an employee
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
entered into regular service based on the Full Bench decision reported in
[(2005 (4) KLT 987) State of Kerala Vs. Ponnamma]. However, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to establish the point
that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit, in this case, admittedly the
petitioner entered into service on 11.10.1994.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that
the benefit of Full Bench decision in Ponnamma's case (supra) was
made available before 1.10.1994 and as per G.O.(P) No.540/94/Fin. Dated
30.10.1994, Decision No.2 to Rule 33 Part I KSR was deleted and therefore,
the said provision cannot be applied to an employee/the petitioner who
admittedly entered into service after 1.10.1994, exactly on 11.10.1994.
6. We have gone through the impugned order as well as G.O.(P)
No.540/94/Fin. dated 30.10.1994. As per the Full Bench decision reported
in Ponnamma's case (supra), it was held in tune with Decision No.2 to
Rule 33 Part I KSR, before its deletion, that the provisional service would be
calculated for increment purposes of the employee entering regular service
on satisfying the following conditions:
'(i) The appointment should be against the same category of post (ii) the post should
carry the same or identical scale of pay and (iii) the qualification and method of
appointment for the posts were the same.'
7. Here, admittedly and evidently the petitioner entered into
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
regular service on 11.10.1994 and therefore, she could not claim benefit of
Decision No.2 to Rule 33 Part I KSR, as the said decision was deleted w.e.f.
1.10.1994. Be it so, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim raised by the
petitioner and the said finding of the Tribunal in this regard, as per the
order impugned is perfectly in order. Therefore, the said finding does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is
confirmed, and consequently this original petition stands dismissed.
sd/
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
sd/
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
jm/
OP(KAT) NO. 173 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 173/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2019 IN O.A.
(EKM)NO.37/2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A(EKM)NO.37/2019
TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2(A1) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.1985 NO.E2-
10162/P5/DPO IPP-III.
