Kerala High Court
Raji V.A vs The Director Of General Education on 12 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 10801 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
RAJI V.A., W/O.MADHU T.K., AGED 42 YEARS
HSA (SANSKRIT), R.H.S. THUMPUR, IRINJALAKKUDA.
(RESIDING AT THOOPRATH HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR P.O.,
THRISSUR-680662)
BY ADVS.
T.T.MUHAMOOD
SRI.A.RENJIT
SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DDE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKKUDA, PIN-680125.
4 THE HEADMASTER, R.H.S. THUMPUR,
IRINJALAKKUDA - 680125.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10801 of 2020 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.10801 of 2020
.................................................................
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction
to quash Exts.P2 and P4 orders issued by the 2nd respondent and for
a consequential direction declaring that the part time service rendered
by the petitioner is to be reckoned for granting weightage for 2004 and
2009 pay revision orders.
2. Petitioner is working as HSA (Sanskrit) in RHS Thumpur,
an aided school under the jurisdiction of the 3 rd respondent. Petitioner
entered in service as HSA (Sanskrit) part time on 06.06.2001 and her
appointment was approved. On completion of five years she was
granted full time benefit in the post of HSA (Sanskrit) part time with
effect from 06.06.2006. Meanwhile 2004 pay revision came into force
and the petitioner's pay was fixed in HSA at the rate of Rs.8,590/- in
the revised scale in terms of 2004 pay revision with effect from
06.06.2006. The pay was fixed in the revised scale granting weightage
to the part time service also. Thereafter in 2009 pay revision the pay of
the petitioner was fixed at the rate of Rs.16,580/- in the scale of
Rs.15,380-25,900 with effect from 01.07.2009 after granting the
benefit of weightage for the part time service rendered by the
petitioner. After a long elapse of time, in the year 2019 the Accounts
Officer attached to the office of the 2nd respondent raised Ext.P2 audit
objection in fixing the pay of the petitioner based on 2004 and 2009
pay revision orders stating that the part time service is reckoned for
granting weightage and therefore the pay has to be re-fixed excluding
the weightage granted for part time service. In response to the same
petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. The contention taken by the
petitioner in Ext.P3 is that Note to Rule 5(1) of the 2004 pay revision
order does not exclude part time service which has been reckoned for
normal increments, for the purpose of granting weightage. What is
specified under the said Note for granting weightage is the service
qualifying for normal increments in the scale of pay and the part time
service which can be reckoned for granting increments can also be
taken into account for granting weightage. However the 2nd respondent
without application of mind rejected the said contention by Ext.P4
order dated 05.02.2020. It is submitted that Ext.P4 order has been
issued on the basis of Ext.P5 Government Order which ordered that
the full time service alone will be taken into consideration for granting
weightage for the pay fixation in accordance with 2004 and 2009 pay
revision orders. This Court had occasion to consider whether the part
time service which qualifies for normal increments could be taken into
consideration for grant of weightage in accordance with 2004 pay
revision and this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment allowed the said claim
declaring that the petitioner therein is entitled for the benefit of
weightage reckoning the part time service which qualifies for normal
increments. Though an appeal was preferred against the same as
W.A.No.428 of 2012, the same was also dismissed as per judgment
dated 07.03.2012. Therefore, it is contended that the declaration
granted by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment that the benefit of
weightage as provided in 2004 pay revision could be granted
reckoning the part time service which qualifies for normal increments.
Petitioner on the basis of Ext.P6, which was confirmed in W.A.No.428
of 2012 submits that the stand taken in Ext.P4 is absolutely arbitrary
and unjust.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent
stating that both fixation of pay during 2004 and 2009 pay revisions
were done under a mistake and the same was objected by the audit
party and on the basis of the same Ext.P2 audit objection was raised
and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
5. It is seen that the pay was fixed based on 2004 and 2009
pay revision orders reckoning the part time service for the purpose of
service weightage. It is long thereafter in 2012 that the Government
has issued an order that only full time service alone need be taken into
consideration for the purpose of grant of weightage. By Ext.P6
judgment this Court has issued a declaration that the part time service
which qualifies for normal increments could be reckoned for the
purpose of weightage. Learned Government Pleader submits that in
the subsequent pay revisions it is specifically stated that only the full
time regular service will be qualified for reckoning service weightage.
In view of the declaration by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment which was
confirmed in W.A.No.428 of 2012, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore the audit objection in
Ext.P2 to the extent it affects the petitioner and also Ext.P4 are set
aside with a consequential declaration that the part time service
rendered by the petitioner is to be reckoned for grant of weightage for
2004 and 2009 pay revisions. There will also be a direction to
respondents 1 to 3 to settle the issue regarding non-grant of
subsequent increments due on the basis of the subsequent pay
revisions based on the declaration made as above, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10801/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF
PAY WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PA
TO DEO IRINJALAKUDA AS PER ORDER
NO.B7-6922/2011/K.DIS DATED
23.08.2011.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AUDIT PARA RAISED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G3-1658/2015
DATED 05.02.2020 ISSUED THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO.560/2012/
(184)/FIN DATED 11.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2011
IN WP(C) 17912/2010.
