Kerala High Court
Soudath K vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.52 OF 2018(F)
PETITIONER:
SOUDATH K, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (URDU),
RMVHSS, PERINJANAM, PERINJANAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
VIDHYABHYASA BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 52/18
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be
working as a High School Assistant (Urdu) in
'RMVHSS', Perinjanam, has approached this
Court impugning Ext.P2 audit objections made
against her to the effect that fixation of pay
granted to her, reckoning 25 years of service
weightage, is in error, since the part-time
service rendered by her between 21.06.1984 and
30.09.2019 ought not to have been so reckoned.
2. The petitioner says that she was
sanctioned the revision of pay by reckoning 25
years service-weightage, including the part-
time service, as per Government Order dated
26.06.2011, which took effect from 01.10.2010
and therefore, that no objections could have
been raised against the same based on a
subsequent Government Order, namely Ext.P3,
which was issued on 10.09.2012.
3. The petitioner contends that this is
WPC 52/18
more so because, Government Order dated
10.09.2012 has been issued in modification of
the earlier order bearing number
GO(P)No.85/2011/Fin., dated 26.02.2011,
stating that only full time regular service is
eligible for calculation of service weightage.
She asserts that these orders have no
retrospective effect and cannot, therefore,
take away a right which has already been
vested on her as early as on 01.10.2010. She,
therefore, prays that Ext.P2 objections be set
aside and her salary and allowances be
directed not to be affected by it in any
manner.
4. In response to the afore submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner by her
learned counsel - Sri.K.B.Ganesh, the learned
Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj,
submitted that a counter affidavit has been
filed on record, wherein, it has been
WPC 52/18
explained that though the petitioner's scale
of pay was revised and fixed with effect from
01.10.2010, as per Government Order dated
26.02.2011, same was found to be in error on
account of the fact that her part-time service
from 21.06.1984 to 30.09.2019 had already been
reckoned, which is in violation of the
subsequent Government Orders dated 26.02.2011
and 10.09.2012. The learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that it is now settled that
part-time service cannot be reckoned for
service weightage but that in spite of this,
the petitioner had been granted a scale
reckoning the same, which has now been
objected through Ext.P2.
5. Even when I hear the learned Senior
Government Pleader as afore, it is uncontested
that the petitioner had exercised her option
to move over to the revised scale of pay with
effect from 01.10.2010 and that it has been
WPC 52/18
fixed so in the scale of 18740-33680, by
reckoning 25 years service weightage -
including the part-time service from
21.06.1984 to 30.09.2019. The fact that this
benefit was given to the petitioner with
effect from 01.10.2010 is not disputed but the
Government only says that the 2nd respondent
has objected to the fixation of pay of the
petitioner, which had been approved by the 3rd
respondent-Director of Public Instructions
(now re-designated as the Director of General
Education), on the ground that the part-time
service of the petitioner is not admissible
for reckoning of service weightage as per the
mandate of the Government Orders dated
26.02.2011 and 10.09.2012. As is therefore,
indubitable, the reasons for the objection
against the revised scale of pay of the
petitioner is edificed on two Government
Orders which have been issued subsequent to
WPC 52/18
the fixation of her revised scale; and I am,
therefore, of the firm view that such
objections cannot detrimentally affect her.
In the afore circumstances, I order this
writ petition and set aside Ext.P2, holding
that the petitioner's revision of pay given
effect by the competent Authorities from
01.10.2010, cannot be taken away by subsequent
Government Orders dated 26.02.2011 and
10.09.2012, since it is obvious that said
orders have no retrospective effect.
Needless to say, all consequential
benefits to the petitioner, including her
pensionary benefits, shall be disbursed to her
based on my findings above at the earliest.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 52/18
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
FIXATION OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER IN
REVISED SCALE SANCTIONED AS PER 2009
PAY REVISION DATED 30-3-2011.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17-07-2014
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.491/2012/
(112)/FIN DATED 10-09-2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11-03-2015
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26-09-2015
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 17-12-2015
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17-08-2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
