Kerala High Court
K Santha vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
PETITIONER:
K SANTHA, AGED 57 YEARS
WIFE OF RAJU, LAB ASSISTANT(RETIRED), HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVAMBADY, ALAPPUZHA. (RESIDING
AT ANURAG BHAVAN, PAZHAVEED, ALAPPUZHA).
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE PRINCIPAL, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THIRUVAMBADY, ALAPPUZHA-688 002.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of January 2021
The petitioner says that she retired from the services of
the Higher Secondary School, Thiruvambady, while working as
a Lab Assistant on 31.03.2013. She says that she originally
commenced her service as a Full Time Menial (FTM) on
08.01.1980 and was promoted as a Peon with effect from
30.03.1994. She admits that she was, thereafter, promoted to
the post of Lab Assistant, but asserts that all the three posts,
namely the Full Time Menial, Peon and Lab Assistant, are in
the same scale of pay and therefore that she is entitled to be
granted first time bound higher grade, reckoning the date on
which she was initially appointed as a Full Time Menial.
2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 order of the
Government - which denies the afore benefits to her saying
that the period of eight years of qualifying service, for the
purpose of the first time bound higher grade, can be reckoned
only from the date on which she was promoted as a Lab
Assistant on 28.03.2003 - be set aside and the Government be
directed to issue orders granting her the said benefit,
reckoning her entire service.
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
3. In response to the afore submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned
Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, initially sought
time to file counter pleadings but then submitted that, as is
evident from Ext.P7, the petitioner was promoted as a Lab
Assistant "by transfer" on 28.03.2003 and therefore, that she is
eligible to get the first time bound higher grade only on
completion of eight years of qualifying service in that post. He
submitted that since these posts are distinct, having different
duties, the contention of the petitioner, that the period from the
time she was joined as FTM, must also be taken into account
for this benefit cannot be acceded to and therefore, prays that
this writ petition be dismissed.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious
that the specific contention of the petitioner is that the posts of
FTM, Peon and Lab Assistant carry the same scale of pay. Her
assertion specifically is that if she continued as FTM in the
school, she would have been entitled to the first time bound
higher grade on completion of eight years from her date of
initial joining. She thus says that it is only because she was
granted promotion to posts which carry the same scale of pay
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
that she has been denied this benefit, which is rightfully
entitled to her.
5. When I examine Exts.P7, it is limpid that the afore
contentions of the petitioner has never been considered and
that all which is stated therein is that, since the petitioner was
appointed as a Lab Assistant "by transfer", she will become
eligible for the first time bound higher grade only on
completion of eight years of qualifying service in the said post.
However, the real question is whether the petitioner's service
in the post of FTM and Peon are also liable to be reckoned for
the reason that all of them carry the same scale of pay and
because the purpose behind the time bound higher grade is to
get over this stagnation of the scale for a long duration.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the Government
must reconsider the matter taking note of the afore contention
of the petitioner and issue fresh orders.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside
Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the competent
Secretary of the Government to reconsider the petitioner's
claim, taking note of her contentions as recorded above and
after affording an opportunity of being heard to her - either
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
physically or through video conferencing - culminating in an
appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,
but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.7030 OF 2016(C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION DATED
01.02.2012 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF
PAY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.02.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.TRO/07/16998/2012/HSE DATED 18.4.2013 OF
THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR DATED
4.8.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR
NO.1551/TI/2009/G.EDN DATED 05.05.2009 OF
THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT DATED 23.12.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.5285/15/G.EDN
DATED 11.11.2015.
