Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs The Kerala Vocational Higher ... on 21 October, 2022
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.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/29TH ASWINA, 1944
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 IN O.A.NO.1644/2014 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GENERAL EDUCATION (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 001.
KERALA
3 THE DIRECTOR DIRECOTRATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,
KERALA.
BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 1 TO 3 IN THE O.A.:
1 THE KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
LAB TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS' UNION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, SRI.ANOOP P.S., LABORATORY TECHNICAL
ASSISTANT, K.P.S.P.M..V.H.S.S. EAST KALLADA,
KOLLAM,PIN 691 502, RESIDING AT T.C.14/1401(1),
THYCAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014, KERALA,
MOBILE 9447698516.
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 2 ::
2 JAYACHANDRA VARMA .G
LABORATORY TEHCNICAL ASSISTANT (C.S), SREEKRISHNA
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KURICHITHANAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 634, KERALA.
3 DILEEP KUMAR.B
LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUTTARA,
KOTTARAKKARA - 691 556, KOLLAM, KERALA.
BY ADV.SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.M.R.ANISON
BY ADV.SMT.V.BHARGAVI PANANGAD
BY ADV.SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
BY ADV.SMT.P.A.RINUSA
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME
UP FOR HEARING ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON 21.10.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 3 ::
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The State and its Director of Vocational Higher Secondary
Education are the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order dated
25.5.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1644 of
2014. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this O.P.(KAT) are as
follows:
The O.A. was filed by a recognised Union of Laboratory
Technical Assistants [LTA's] in the Government and aided Vocational
Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala and two of its individual members
seeking parity in pay scale with Trade Instructors Grade II in the
Technical High Schools in the State. When Vocational Higher
Secondary Schools were started in Kerala in 1983 - 84, skilled
Assistants working in Technical High Schools were posted on
deputation basis to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools [VHSS's].
The skilled Assistants were treated at par with Laboratory Attenders.
Over a period of time however, the designation of the posts changed
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 4 ::
and the skilled Assistant/Trade Instructor Grade II came to be
recognised as the supporting staff of Technical High Schools, whereas
Laboratory Attenders came to be re-designated as Laboratory
Technical Assistants and recognised as supporting staff of the
Vocational Higher Secondary Department.
2. The qualification requirement of the LTA's in the VHSS was
always higher, for, they had to be possessed of the qualification of
SSLC and Certificate in the concerned Vocational Higher Secondary
course OR two years ITI certificate in the branch concerned. The
Trade Instructor Grade II, on the other hand, had only to have the
qualification of 7th standard and Trade Certificate in the trade
concerned. The duties of the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade
Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department were more or less the
same. Notwithstanding the above, while implementing the 7 th Pay
Commission recommendation with effect from 1997, the Trade
Instructor Grade II was granted a higher pay scale of Rs.3350 - 5275
in the Pay Band S-5, while the LTA's were granted the pay scale of
Rs.3050 - 5230 in Pay Band S-4. This is notwithstanding the fact that
the pre-revised pay scale of both categories was Rs.1050 - 1660.
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 5 ::
3. The disparity that was brought about in the Pay Revision led
the LTA's in the VHS Department to prefer representations to the
State Government which promised to look into the matter in the next
Pay Revision. In the 8 th Pay Revision that was effected from 2004, the
Government took note of the grievance of the LTA's in the VHS
Department, and recommended the higher scale for LTA's. Paragraph
5.16.5.4. of the 8th Pay Revision order [Annexure A6] is relevant, and
reads as follows:
Higher scale for Laboratory Assistants:
5.16.5.4 The nature of work of the Laboratory
Assistants is different from that of
Attenders/Clerical Assistants. Their work
requires some basic knowledge relating
to scientific equipments such as its
functions, usage, precautions in
handling scientific equipments etc.
Considering the supportive role of
Laboratory Assistants in handling scientific
equipments and higher qualification
required for appointment, the Commission
recommend enhancement of the scale of
pay from Rs.3050 - 5230 to Rs.3350 - 5275 to
the post.
It is significant that what the Government did was to bring about the
pay scale parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and
Technical Assistant Grade II in the Technical Department by making
the pre-revised scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. This effectively brought
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 6 ::
both categories of posts into the pre-revised Pay Band S-5. Thereafter,
however, while the revised pay scale for LTA's in the VHS Department
was retained in Pay Band S-5 and fixed at Rs.5510 - 8590, the revised
pay scale for Trade Instructors Grade II was enhanced and fixed in Pay
Band S-7 at Rs.6680 - 10790. In effect, therefore, the Government,
while addressing the disparity issued by equalising the pay scales at
the pre-revised stage, immediately thereafter reintroduced the
disparity in another form while implementing the Pay Revision in
2004.
4. The applicants impugned the Pay Revision order, initially
before this Court through writ petitions that were disposed directing
the Government to examine the matter afresh, and later before the
Tribunal through O.A.No.584 of 2012 challenging the order of the
Government that refused to redress the grievance. The said O.A. was
disposed by the Tribunal with the following observations and
directions:
"9. We went through the pleadings and materials on record
and also the submissions made at the bar by learned counsel on both
sides. We notice that Annexure A13, the relevant portion of 8 th Pay
Commission Report, has upheld the claim of the Lab Technical
Assistants for a higher scale of pay. The relevant portion of the said
report reads as follows:
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 7 ::
"Higher scale for Laboratory Assistants:
The nature of work of the Laboratory Assistants is
different from that of Attenders/Clerical Assistants. Their work
requires some basic knowledge relating to scientific equipments
such as its functions, usage, precautions in handling scientific
equipments, etc. Considering the supportive role of Laboratory
Assistants in handling scientific equipments and higher qualification
required for appointment, the Commission recommend
enhancement of the scale of pay from Rs.3050-5230 to Rs.3350-
5275 to the post."
Thus their pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230 was revised to
Rs.3350-5275. Thereafter the corresponding revision applicable to
the scale of Rs.3350-5275, that is the scale of pay of Rs.5510-8590
was also allowed to that post. So, normally the applicants cannot
have any grievance. But simultaneously when the pay of Trade
Instructor Gr. II was revised, it was given upward revision by two
stages, that is for the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275, the Pay
Commission allowed the scale of pay of Rs.6680-10790 instead of
Rs.5510-8590. So the applicants claim parity at the post revision
stage also. One of the reasons given in Annexure A19 for rejecting
the claim of the applicants is that at no point of time pay parity
existed between Lab Technical Assistants and Trade Instructor Gr. II.
The said finding in Annexure A19 cannot be correct. The said
finding may be technically correct, but Annexure A13 would indicate
that taking into account the claim of the applicants their pre-revised
scale of pay at the time of pay revision was treated as equivalent to
that of Trade Instructor Gr. II. Another reason given by the
Government for rejecting the claim of the applicants in Annexure
A19 is that the nature of work of Trade Instructor Gr. II and Lab
Technical Assistants are entirely different. Government seriously
disputes the claim of the applicants that the duties and
responsibilities of Lab Technical Assistants is on a higher pedestal
when compared to the duties responsibilities of Trade Instructor Gr.
II. But the Government have not given any reason or material for
the said finding. The ipse dixit of the Government will not be
sufficient for rejecting the claim of the applicants especially in view
of Annexure A17 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court directing the
Government to reconsider the matter. Though the impugned order
Annexure A19 is a lengthy one, on the points that are relevant the
order is non-speaking. Two points which are to be specifically
considered are the following: (1) qualification prescribed for the two
posts; and (2) the nature of duties of the incumbents working in the
two posts. If they are comparable and the V.H.S.S stream is on a
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 8 ::
higher pedestal, the persons in that stream are entitled to get at
least the pay equivalent to that of the other stream. Going by the
qualification, it is manifestly clear that the qualification for the post
of Lab Technical Assistant is slightly higher than that of the
qualification for the post of Trade Instructor Gr. II. The general
educational qualification for the post of Lab Technical Assistant is
SSLC, whereas the general educational qualification for the post of
Trade Instructor Gr. II is IIIrd Form, which is equivalent to 7 th
standard. The technical qualification for the post of Lab Technical
Assistant is certificate in VHSE and two years' experience certificate
in the concerned branch, whereas in the case of Trade Instructor Gr.
II, the technical qualification is trade certificate in the appropriate
branch or junior school leaving certificate with specialisation in the
appropriate field. So the qualification of Lab Technical Assistant is
plainly higher when compared to Skilled Assistant Gr. II. Regarding
the nature of duties as mentioned earlier the finding of the
Government that they are higher for the Trade Instructor Gr. II when
compared to Lab Technical Assistant is not supported by any
material. The finding is non-speaking without giving any details. So
we notice that the order of the Government, Annexure A19 is
vitiated for not taking into account the relevant facts. So it is an
unreasonable order in the 'Wednesbury' sense.
10. Accordingly, Annexure A19 is quashed and the matter is
remitted to the Government for a fresh decision in accordance with
law, in the light of the observations made by us hereinabove. The
Government while disposing of the matter shall specifically say
though the qualifications for Lab Technical Assistant are higher, why
they are not eligible for the scale of pay of Trade Instructor Gr. II. If
the nature of duties justify such differentiation, the Government
shall give details regarding the same with specific materials."
It can be seen from the order of the Tribunal that it found that the
LTA's of VHS Department were possessed of higher educational
qualifications than the Trade Instructor Grade II, and hence, unless it
could be demonstrated that the nature of their duties was different, a
disparity in their pay scales could not be justified. In the order that
was passed by the Government, pursuant to the directions of the
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 9 ::
Tribunal [Annexure A26], the reasons stated for rejecting the request
for parity is as follows:
"7) As per G.O read as 2nd paper above, the duties and responsibilities
of Trade Instructor Grade II in Technical Education Department are as
follows:
1. Charge of hand tools if the number of skilled assistance in
a section is more than one tools commonly used will be kept in
a separate locker under the joint responsibility of all the
skilled assistance. The remaining item will be kept by the
senior most hand (The workshop Superintendent, foreman
with the help of the concerned workshop Instructor shall give
the charges of hand tools to the skilled assistance).
2. Maintenance of subsidiary registers in respect of items under
his charge.
3. Demonstration of the various operations, proper methods of
handling tools etc to the students as directed by the
Instructor.
4. Preparation of advertisement operation by students, which
may damage equipment.
5. Help the students in the correct handling of tools and
operation sequences.
6. Preparation of work pieces.
7. Moulding and sharpening of special tools.
8. Numbering of Models.
9. Servicing and repairs of machines in the section as directed
by the Instructor.
10. Any other departmental work as per direction from the
superiors.
8) As per the circular read as 4 th paper above, the duties and
responsibilities of the Lab Assistants in Vocational Higher Secondary
Education are as follows.
1. Lab Assistants are in the Non teaching category.
2. He/She should attend all the laboratory works irrespective of
Vocational/Non Vocational subjects as per the instruction of
the Principals for the smooth functioning of the VHS Course.
3. He/She should make all arrangements for the conduct of
practicals as per the instruction of concerned teacher.
4. He/She should maintain the labs properly and neatly.
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 10 ::
5. The primary duty of Lab Assistants is to assist the
Instructor/Teacher in the Laboratories of the schools as per
the time schedule, fixed by the principals of the schools.
6. Laboratory of the school includes both Vocational and non
Vocational Laboratory.
7. He/She should have to assist the production aspects of PTC.
9) From the above, it is seen that the qualification prescribed for the
posts of Lab Technical Assistant in Vocational Higher Secondary Education
and Trade Instructor in Technical Education Department and the nature of
duties of the incumbents working in the two posts differ.
10) It is also seen that at no point of time, there existed a parity
between the scales of Lab Technical Assistant of Vocational Higher Secondary
Education Department and Trade Instructor Gr. II of Technical Education
Department. Considering the different nature of work of Lab Technical
Assistant from that of Attenders (Clerical Assistant) the 8 th Pay Commission
Report has recommended to enhance the pay scale of Lab Assistants from
3050-5275 to 3350-5275, simultaneously the same Commission has
recommended to enhance the scale of pay of Trade Instructor Gr II of
Technical Education Department from 3350-5275 to 4000-6090 taking into
account of their qualifications, duties and responsibilities.
11) As per G.O read as 1 st paper above, Trade Instructors in
Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic etc belong to the category of teaching
staff and they are eligible for benefit under rule 60(c) of KSR Part I. The scale
of pay of such a category of the post cannot be compared with that of Lab
Technical Assistant who is supporting staff in Vocational Higher Secondary
School.
12) In fixing the scale of pay of a post, qualification is only one among
many factors to be considered, it is not the sole factor to be considered.
Moreover, the qualifications for the post of Trade Instructor Gr. II have been
revised vide G.O read as 8th paper above to SSLC and concerned Trade
certificate or THSLC in appropriate Trade.
13) In the above circumstances, the request of the applicants does not
merit consideration and hence rejected. The Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal
read as 9th paper above is complied with accordingly."
5. It is significant that while the Government chose to find that
the qualifications of both posts were different, it did not mention the
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 11 ::
finding of the Tribunal that the qualifications required for LTA's in the
VHS Department were higher than that of the Trade Instructor Grade
II. That apart, the Government order highlighted that the Trade
Instructor Grade II is a teaching post, whereas the LTA is a non-
teaching post. This appears to be an incorrect assumption of facts,
since, a reference to the G.O.(MS)No.476/Edn/ 64 dated 4.9.1964, that
was relied upon to hold so, clearly indicates that the Trade Instructor
Grade II was only treated at par with teaching staff for the limited
purposes of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR that permits inter alia teachers,
whose date of retirement falls in the middle of the academic year, to
continue in service till the end of the academic year. At any rate, it
was Annexure A26 order of the Government that was impugned before
the Tribunal in O.A.No.1644/2014, from which this O.P.(KAT) arises.
6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, found inter alia as
follows:
(i) That both LTA's and Trade Instructor Grade II were not
part of teaching staff and the commonality between the
two categories of posts was that they were supporting
staff in their respective Department.
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 12 ::
(ii) That there was essentially no difference in the nature of
duties performed by the incumbents of each of those
posts.
(iii) The Trade Instructor Grade II had been given the
benefit of a higher pay scale even when they were
having a lesser qualification than LTA's of the VHS
Department.
(iv) The impugned order of the Government could not be
legally sustained and was liable to be set aside and the
applicants entitled to notional fixation as far as the 2004
Pay Revision order was concerned and enhanced pay
along with arrears from the date of effect of the 9 th Pay
Revision Order.
7. In the Original Petition before us, it is the contention of the
learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners
that the LTA in the VHS Department could claim parity only with
Workshop Attenders in the Industrial Training Institute, since the pay
scales of the said categories of posts had always been similar. It is
pointed out that Trade Instructor Grade II is a higher post to that of
the Workshop Attender, and, hence, the LTA's of the VHS Department
could not claim parity with the said posts. It is further submitted that
the Trade Instructor Grade II, being a post in the teaching category,
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 13 ::
the LTA in the VHS Department, who were not in the teaching
category, could not seek a comparable pay scale. Lastly, it was
contended that pay fixation, being a complicated exercise, it was not
open to the Tribunal or this Court to re-visit the decision of the
Government which was taken after considering all relevant factors.
Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Col. B.J. Akkara
(Retd.) v. Government of India and Others - [(2006) 11 SCC
709], Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee -
[(2006) 9 SCC 643], Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v.
Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others - [(2019) 3 SCC 547] and
Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Thana Singh and
Others - [(2019) 4 SCC 113] in support of his contentions.
8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt.V.P. Seemandini,
duly assisted by Smt.V. Bhargavi, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents, took us through the various Pay Revision Orders to
show that until 2004, the pay scales of the LTA in the VHS Department
and the Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department were
the same. It was pointed out that, in 2004, although prior to the
implementation of the 8 th Pay Revision, the Government had brought
about the parity in the pre-revised pay scales, the disparity once again
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 14 ::
arose only because the Government reintroduced the same after
having remedied the earlier disparity. A specific reference is made to
the 8th Pay Revision Order, where, the revised pay scale for Trade
Instructor Grade II was fixed in Pay Band S-7 while retaining the
revised pay scale of LTA's in the VHS Department in Pay Band S-5.
She also reiterates that while the nature of duties of both the posts
was the same, the qualification requirements for LTA's was much
higher. She contends therefore that the impugned order of the
Tribunal warrants no interference. She places reliance on the
judgments reported in State of Haryana and Another v. Ram
Chander and Another - [(1997) 5 SCC 253], Union of India v.
Tarit Rajan Das - [(2003) 11 SCC 658], Union of India v.
Dineshan K.K. - [(2008) 1 SCC 586], Union of India (UOI) and
Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond - [JT 2013 (15) SC 186], State of
Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others - [ILR 2016 (4)
Kerala 419], judgment dated 1.1.2009 in W.A.No.1360 of 2008
and judgment dated 3.6.2009 in W.P.(C).No.27580 of 2007.
9. We have considered the material on record as also the
arguments of the learned counsel on either side. At the very outset,
we deem it appropriate to remind ourselves of the oft-repeated caution
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 15 ::
by the Supreme Court that equation of posts and salary is a complex
matter which should be left to an expert body and that courts must
realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which
even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise
have found it difficult to undertake. That apart, fixation of pay and
determination of parity is a matter for the Executive to discharge for it
may have a cascading effect and reaction that can have adverse
financial consequence. [See: Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey
[(2000 (8) SCC 580], S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of
Jharkhand and Others - [(2007) 8 SCC 279], HEC Voluntary
Retd. Employees. Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corporation
Ltd. [(2006) 3 SCC 708], State of A.P. v. A.P. Pensioners'
Association - [(2005) 13 SCC 161] and Union of India and
Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - [(2006) 9 SCC 643].
10. That being said, it cannot follow that merely because
determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the
Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure
and an aggrieved employee has no remedy, if he is unjustly treated by
arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the
doors of the Executive or the Legislature. When the court is convinced
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 16 ::
of a situation where persons holding identical posts with regard to
qualifications, duties and responsibilities are treated differently merely
because the posts are in different Departments, then it must interfere
to check such irrational and arbitrary actions of the State [See:
Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. - [(2008) 1 SCC 586], Union of
India (UOI) and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond - [JT 2013 (15)
SC 186] and K.T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Others - [(2006) 9 SCC 406].
11. In matters of pay fixation, it is now trite that ordinarily, the
scale of pay is fixed keeping in view several factors such as, (i) method
of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is made; (iii) the
hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimum
educational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of
promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii)
employer's capacity to pay, etc.
Further, for determining the equivalence of posts, the following factors
are determined, namely, (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the
responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the
extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities
discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 17 ::
recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is also trite
that the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the
nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such
right. Accordingly, the person claiming parity must produce material
before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are
similar and they are entitled to parity of pay scales. Ordinarily, the
courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is left to
expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It is also well settled that
the financial implication of a State is a relevant factor for accepting
the revision of pay and that it is not always impermissible to provide
two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection
based on merit with regard to experience and seniority. A mere
difference itself does not always amount to discrimination and non-
uniformities would not in all events violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of India [See: Union of India v. P.K. Roy - [AIR 1968
SC 850], Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh
Kumar Jindal and Others - [(2019) 3 SCC 547], State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Vikram Das - [(2019) (4) SCC 125] and Union of India
and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - [(2006) 9 SCC 643].
12. On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the posts in
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 18 ::
question were once the same and interchangeable. The subsequent re-
designation of the posts brought them under two different
departments, and even then, the parity in pay scale between them was
maintained till 1997. It was thereafter while implementing the 7 th Pay
Commission recommendation with effect from 1997, that the Trade
Instructor Grade II was granted a higher pay scale of Rs.3350 - 5275
in Pay Band S-5 while LTA's of the VHS Department were granted the
pay scale of Rs.3050 - 5230 in Pay Band S-4, notwithstanding that the
pre-revised pay scales for both categories was Rs.1050 - 1660. When
representations were preferred by the LTA's for parity in pay scale, on
that occasion, what the Government did was to bring about pay scale
parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade Instructor
Grade II in the Technical Department by making their pre-revised
scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. The Government, however, in the same
stroke, and while implementing the revised pay scale under the 8 th Pay
Revision, retained the pay scale for LTA's in the VHS Department in
Pay Band S-5 by fixing the pay scale at Rs.5510 - 8590. The revised
pay scale for Trade Instructor Grade II was however enhanced and
fixed in Pay Band S-7 at Rs.6880 - 10790. In effect, therefore, while
technically addressing the disparity issue by equating the pay scales at
the pre-revised stage, the Government immediately reintroduced the
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 19 ::
disparity while implementing the 8 th Pay Revision in 2004. It was this
anomaly/disparity that was brought to the notice of the Tribunal,
which, in the first round of litigation, found that when it came to
educational qualifications, the LTA's were possessed of higher
qualification and unless it was demonstrated that the duties performed
by Trade Instructor Grade II was vastly different, the grant of a higher
pay scale to them could not be justified. In the order of the
Government that was passed based on the directions of the Tribunal,
the Government highlighted the fact that the post of Trade Instructor
Grade II was a teaching post unlike the LTA of the VHS Department,
which was a non-teaching post. This finding of the Government was
patently wrong since the G.O. relied on by them clearly indicated that
the Trade Instructor Grade II was only treated at par with teaching
staff for the limited purposes of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR that permitted
inter alia teachers, whose date of retirement falls in the middle of the
year, to continue in service till the end of the academic year. It is also
significant that in the UO notes produced by the applicants along with
their O.A. and which forms the back documents for the Government
order that was impugned before the Tribunal, while there is a clear
mention of a recommendation by the Director of the VHS Department
for parity in pay scale of LTA's with Trade Instructor Grade II, the said
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 20 ::
recommendation was not accepted only because of a remark by the
Finance Department.
13. On a consideration of the entire matter and the
circumstances under which the disparity arose in the fixation of pay
scales for the two categories of posts, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned order of the Tribunal that, in our view, correctly
finds that the differential pay scales granted to the posts in question
were wholly unjustifiable.
As a result, we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The O.P.(KAT) therefore
fails, and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are directed to
effect compliance of the directions of the Tribunal within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
prp/
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 21 ::
APPENDIX OF O.P(KAT).NO.180/2016
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1: A TRUE COPY OF OA NO. 1644/2014 DATED
28.8.2014 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13/06/1990
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF 1992 PAY
REVISION ORDER.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.792/EDN. DATED
30/11/1963.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING GO(MS) NO.
106/89/H.EDN. DATED 12/05/1989 RE-
DESIGNATING SKILLED ASSISTANTS AS TRADE
INSTRUCTORS.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.53/91/G.EDN. DATED
30/03/1991.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 2004 PAY
REVISION ORDER SHOWING LAB TECHNICAL
ASSISTANTS AS SUPPORTING STAFF OF VHSE.
ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF 3RD RESPONDENT
BEARING NO. RTI/7369/10(EC) DATED
10/03/2010 SHOWING TRADE INSTRUCTOR AS
SUPPORTING STAFF OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 22 ::
DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.769/82/H.EDN. DATED
04/05/1982.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/12/2010
OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR RE-DESIGNATING
LAB ASSISTANT AS LAB TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
BEARING NO.C2/7354/2006 DATED 05/11/2007.
ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 28/09/2010
ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF V H S E,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF MASTER TIME TABLE.
ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE GRADING SYSTEM IN VHSE
PUBLISHED BY THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
14/07/2009.
ANNEXURE A15 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF SCHEDULE
ATTACHED TO THE 1998 PAY REVISION ORDER
RELATING TO TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOLS AND
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION.
ANNEXURE A16 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE
1ST APPLICANT ORGANIZATION BEFORE THE PAY
REVISION COMMITTEE DATED 31/10/2005.
ANNEXURE A17 A TRUE COPY OF RECOMMENDATION LETTER ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/04/2007.
ANNEXURE A18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/07/2008
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 23 ::
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE A19 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/11/2010 IN
WPC NO.26031/2008.
ANNEXURE A20 A TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST APPLICANT ORGANIZATION ON THE DATE
OF HEARING CONDUCTED ON 03/06/2011.
ANNEXURE A21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 23/11/2011.
ANNEXURE A22 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE
1ST APPLICANT ORGANIZATION DATED
11/06/2010.
ANNEXURE A23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER
DATED 22/08/2011 GIVEN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A24 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
07/01/2014.
ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DATED 06/01/2014 IN OA
NO.584/2012.
ANNEXURE A26 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING GO(RT)
NO.3233/2014/G1.EDN. DATED 12/08/2014.
ANNEXURE A27 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/08/2014
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A28 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.476/EDN./64 DATED
04/06/1964.
ANNEXURE A29 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR BEARING
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 24 ::
O.G1/9255/2005 DATED 07/08/2006.
ANNEXURE A30 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA
CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 2004 ISSUED BY SCERT,
KERALA.
ANNEXURE A31 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.123/7/G.EDN. DATED
23/06/2007.
ANNEXURE A32 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.FNO.37/3/LEGAL/2010 DATED 22/01/2010.
ANNEXURE A33 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.75/2014/FIN. DATED
20/02/2014.
ANNEXURE A34 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
STAFF PATTERN OF TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL
STAFF.
ANNEXURE A35 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 1992 PAY
REVISION ORDER.
ANNEXURE A36 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARISON CHARGE OF VHSE
AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL.
ANNEXURE A37 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHART PREPARED
BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE SCALE OF PAY
ACTION TO THOSE TWO CATEGORIES OF POST IN
THE VARIOUS PAY REVISION ORDERS.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
27.5.2015 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-JOINDER DATED
21.06.2015 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 25 ::
27.06.2015 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 OF
THE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 1644 OF 2014
EXHIBIT P6 A PHOTO COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE
KERALA TECHNICAL EDUCATION SUBORDINATE
SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P7 A PHOTO OF THE KERALA CRAFTSMAN TRAINING
SUBORDINATE SERVICE SPECIAL RULES.
EXHIBIT P8 A PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
GO(p)NO.600/93/FIN DATED 25.09.1993 IN
RESPECT OF THE POST OF TRADE INSTRUCTOR
GRADE II UNDER THE ENGINEERING COLLEGES AND
POLYTECHNICS AND THE POST OF WORKSHOP
ATTENDER UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
GO(p)NO.145/2006/FIN DATED 25.03.2006.
EXHIBIT P10 A PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
GO.NO.85/2011/FIN DATED 26.2.2011.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.EB2/4125/19/D.T.E. DATED 19.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 5TH PAY
REVISION ORDER AS PER G.O.(P) NO.480/89/FIN. DATED 01.11.1989.
EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 6TH PAY
O.P.(KAT).NO.180 OF 2016 :: 26 ::
REVISION ORDER AS PER G.O.(P) NO.600/93/FIN. DATED 25.09.1993.
EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF ALL THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 8TH PAY
REVISION ORDER AS PER G.O. (P) NO.145/2006/FIN. DATED 25.03.2006.
EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS).NO.522/EDN. DATED
08.08.1962.
EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.05.2007.
EXHIBIT R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2013.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
