Kerala High Court
Suresh U vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SURESH U.P
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O GPALAMENON.V, HSA (SS), GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,VALANCHERY
RESIDING AT SAYOOJYAM, KOLATHUR PO,MALAPPURAM-679 338
BY ADV SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECERTARY TO GOVERNMENT,FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY
REVISION 2009 ANOMILYRECTIFICATION CELL), SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM- 695 001
2 THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR-676 101
4 VALANCHERY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
VALANCHERY, MALAPURAM-676 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
5 VALANCHERY GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM-676 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEADMISTRESS
6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
MALAPPURAM DOWNHILL PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 519
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be working as a High School
Teacher in Social Science, in the services of "Valanchery Girls High
School," Valanchery.
2. The grievance of the petitioner falls in a very narrow
compass - that his junior, a certain Sri.Unnikrishnan, is drawing a
higher scale of pay than him; and he, therefore, prays that the
competent respondents be directed to rectify this mistake at the
earliest.
3. The petitioner says that when he approached the
competent Educational Authorities impelling his request, it has
been rejected through Ext.P7 order issued by the Government,
saying that he cannot be allowed to make a re-option with respect
to the 2009 Pay Revision Recommendations; nor that he is not
entitled to the benefit of stepping up of his salary to be at par with
his junior either.
4. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P7 is illegal and unlawful
because fixation of pay has been made without considering the fact
that his junior is obtaining a Higher Scale of Pay and that he is now
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
drawing a lesser pay than him.
5. The afore submissions of the petitioner, as argued by his
learned counsel - Sri.Biju Abraham, was countered by the learned
Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, by referring to
paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 1 st
respondent, saying that the controversy in question has arisen
because the petitioner did not properly exercise his options for the
Second Time Bound Higher Grade promotion in the pre-revised and
the revised Scales of Pay, consequent to 2009 Pay Revision Orders.
He submitted that if the petitioner had opted for Senior Grade and
2009 Pay Revision with effect from 15.07.2009, as per Rule 7(2) of
the Government Order dated 26.02.2011, his pay would have been
fixed at Rs.22,920/- with effect from 15.07.2009, in stead of
Rs.22,360/-. He added that in fact, the Junior of the petitioner -
Sri.Unnikrishnan, had opted for 2009 Pay Revision with effect from
01.07.2011 and consequently, that his pay was fixed at a higher,
Rs.22,920/-.
6. Sri.P.M.Manoj He thus argued that the reduction of pay
of the petitioner occurred only due to 'non judicious option'
submitted by him with respect to the 2009 Pay Revision and
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
therefore, that his request for either stepping up of his pay or for
rectification of this anomaly cannot be granted in terms of the
Government Order bearing G.O.(P)No.85/2011/Fin dated
26.02.2011, which permits certain sections of employees to
exercise re-option under specified circumstances. The learned
Senior Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
7. Though I find some force in the submissions of the
learned Senior Government Pleader, the fact remains that on
account of either a 'non judicial option' exercised by the petitioner
or on account of some other factor, the Scale of Pay of the
petitioner's Junior is admittedly higher than him. If the petitioner
had lost out on obtaining his correct fixation of pay on account of
the fact that he did not opt for the Second Time Bound Higher
Grade promotion with effect from 15.07.2009 in the pre-revised
scale and the post-revised scale, consequent to 2009 Pay Revision,
obviously, he is entitled to have the same rectified, particularly
when his junior is drawing a higher scale of pay on account of his
option having been exercised correctly.
8. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains, as is also
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
admitted in the counter affidavit, that consequent to the option
exercised by the petitioner, his pay was fixed at Rs.22,360/- in the
pay scale of Rs.18,740-33,680/-; while his junior Sri.Unnikrishnan
was granted the pay of Rs.22,920/-. It may be true, being
impossible for this Court to verify it affirmatively, that this anomaly
occurred on account of the petitioner not exercising his option with
respect to the Second Time Bound Higher Grade promotion with
effect from 15.07.2009 in the pre-revised pay scale and post-revised
pay scale on the same day. The petitioner, perhaps, was not aware
that he could have done so and it is also plausible that he was not
properly guided in this matter.
9. However, as long as the petitioner's contention, that his
junior is drawing a higher pay of scale, is found credible, I am of
the view that notwithstanding the technical contentions now
impelled by the Government, he should be given an opportunity of
either exercising a re-option or in seeking that his pay be stepped
up in tune with that of his junior.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set
aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the Government to
reconsider the request of the petitioner, adverting to my
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
observations above and after affording him an opportunity of being
heard - either physically or through video conferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, if, consequent to the afore exercise, the
petitioner is found entitled to any relief, the resultant benefits shall
be granted to him without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 37146 OF 2015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37146/2015
PETITIONER's exhibits
EX.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GP (P) NO.
176/12(56) FIN DT. 24/3/12
EX.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN
THE REVISED SCALE SANCTIONED IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONER D. 26/11/11 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EX.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN
THE HIGHER/SENIOR/SELECTION GRADE OF THE PETITIONER
DT. 31/01/12 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EX.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN
THE REVISED SCALE SANCTIONED IN FAVOUR OF
UNNIKRISHNA P DT. 26/11/11 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EX.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN
THE HIGHER/SENIOR/SELECTION GRADE OF UNNIKRISHNAN
P. DT. 30/5/12 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EX.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL DT. 2/2/13
EX.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED ORDER SERVED ON THE
PETITIONER OF THE 1ST 6TH AND 3RD RESPONDENT DT.
13/8/15 (OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
G.O(P)NO.85/11/FIN DATED 26.02.2011.
EXT.R1(A) STATEMENT SHOWING THE EXAMINATION OF SERVICE BOOKS
BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
