State Of Kerala vs M.Satheesan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9205 Ker

            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/