Kerala High Court
A.N. Rajappan Pillai vs Autokast Ltd on 14 August, 2025
W.A.No.370 of 2017 1 2025:KER:60973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 14
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA,
1947
WA NO. 370 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2016 IN WPC
NO.3032 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
.N.RAJAPPAN PILLAI
A
S/O.NEELAKANTA PILLAI, RAJ BHAVAN,MYITHARA P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,(NOW WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,AUTOKAST LTD.,
S.N.PURAM P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 582.
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K.RAJ
SMT.A.ARUNA
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
UTOKAST LTD.
A
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,S.N.PURAM P.O.,
CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 582.
2
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
W.A.No.370 of 2017 2 2025:KER:60973
UTOKAST LTD., S.N.PURAM P.O.,CHERTHALA,
A
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 582.
3
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
MT.PARVATHY KOTTOL
S GP
SRI.SIDDARTH
HIS
T WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD
ON
11.08.2025,
THE
COURT
ON
14.08.2025
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.370 of 2017 3 2025:KER:60973
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Thepresentintra-courtappealfiledunderSection5ofthe
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated
07.07.2016 passed in W.P(C)No.3032 of 2013, whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The appellant/petitioner had filed the writ petition
seeking for the following reliefs:
" i) to issue a writ of certiorari callingfortherecordsleading
to the issuance of Exhibit-P16 and quash the same;
ii) to issue awritofmandamusoranyappropriatewritorder
or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix
petitioner's basic pay inthepostofAssistantEngineertaking
into consideration petitioner's basic pay at the time of his
promotion and total length of service;
and
iii) to grant such other relief 's as this HonourableCourtmay
deem fit in the circumstances of this case."
W.A.No.370 of 2017 4 2025:KER:60973
3. The case of the appellant was that he entered into
service of the respondent Company as an Electrician in the
workercategory on 13.08.1984.At the time ofhisappointment
hisbasicpaywasRs.280/-withanincrementofRs.10/-.Laterhe
was granted notional increment and his basic pay was fixed
accordingly. Thereafter the appellantwaspromotedtothepost
of Assistant Engineer, vide orderdated21.04.2011 (Ext.P2).His
basic pay in the worker category was Rs.3,685/-, Dearness
Allowance Rs.7,540/- and House Rent Allowance Rs.582.75/-
whichisevidentfromExt.P3.Thegrievanceoftheappellantwas
thaton promotion,vide Ext.P2the basicpaywasreducedfrom
Rs.3,685/- to Rs.2,000/-. The increment was alsoreduced from
Rs.95toRs.50/-.Thisanomalywaspointedoutbytheappellant
askingforprotectingthesalarydrawnintheworkercategoryto
executivecategory.Similarpersonsweregrantedbenefitofpay
protection whereas the appellant was denied.
W.A.No.370 of 2017 5 2025:KER:60973
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ
petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
holding that:
" 4. On a considerationofthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that
there is in fact no anomaly inthefixationofpay,asalleged
bythepetitionerinthewritpetition.Thetotalpaythatwas
paid to the petitioner pursuant to promotion as Assistant
Engineer, took in components of Basic pay, DA, and HRA.
Whilethesamecomponentsformedintegralpartsofthepay
that he was drawing as a Worker, theformulaonwhichthe
pay was worked out was materially different in both the
categories.WhilehewasworkingintheWorkercategory,the
DAthatwaspaidtohimwasanindustrialDA,whichwasnot
directlylinkedtothebasicpay.Onthecontrary,whenhewas
promoted as Assistant Engineer, and moved into the
Executive category, the formula for pay was also changed
and hisDAwaslinkedtothebasicpay.Itisaccordinglythat
hedrewaDA,whichwas489%ofhisbasicpayatthetimeof
hispromotiontothepostofAssistantEngineer.Inasmuchas
the basic formula which determined the pay applicable to
the petitioner was different in the category of the Worker
andinthecategoryoftheExecutive,thepetitionercouldnot
be heard to complain of a reduction of one of the
components in the formula, when the total pay that he
received on promotion was, admittedly, significantlyhigher
than what he was drawing in the Worker category. On
consideringthereasonsstatedinthecounteraffidavitbythe
respondents, I amnotpersuadedtoholdthattherewasany
W.A.No.370 of 2017 6 2025:KER:60973
a nomaly in the fixation of pay of the petitioner in the
category of Assistant Engineer, pursuant to his promotion
from the Worker category. Under the said circumstances, I
seenoreasontograntthepetitionerthereliefsoughtforin
the writ petition."
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition
inasmuchasthesettledlegalpositionisthatonpromotion,the
basic pay cannot be reduced. The learned Single Judge
erroneouslyand onassumption cametotheconclusionthaton
promotionfromworkercategorytoexecutivecategory,thetotal
payofthepetitionergotenhanced.SecondlythelearnedSingle
Judge also failed to consider the important aspect that the
officer who gave him personal hearing did not pass the
impugned order. Paragraph 31 of the judgmentofthe Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others v. Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another [1959
Supp (1) SCR 319] reads as under:
" 31. The second objection is that while the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State
W.A.No.370 of 2017 7 2025:KER:60973
overnment to give a personal hearing, the procedure
G
prescribedbytheRulesimposeadutyontheSecretaryto
hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided
responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial
hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal
hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority
concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and
clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments,
and the party appearing to persuade the authority by
reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one
person hears and another decides, thenpersonalhearing
becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the
said procedure followed in this case also offendsanother
basic principle of judicial procedure."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid dictum, it is clear as day
light that if one person hears and another decides, then
personalhearingbecomesanemptyformality.Suchaprocedure
also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure. On
these two grounds the learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed
the writ petition.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the afore prayer and
W.A.No.370 of 2017 8 2025:KER:60973
submitted that personal hearing was duly granted to the
appellant and hearing by one person and passing of order by
another would not be aground tosetaside thejudgment. The
learned Single Judge has not committed any error so as to
interferewith the findings.Sothat thewrit appealdeservesto
be dismissed.
8. Heard the learnedcounsel for the partiesand perused
the records.
9. The ApexCourt inthecaseofGullapalliNageswaraRao
(Supra)hascategoricallyheldthatthisdividedresponsibilityof
hearing by onepersonand passing orderby anotherperson is
destructive oftheconceptofjudicialhearing.Suchaprocedure
defeatstheobjectofpersonalhearing.Personalhearingenables
the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the
witnesses and to clear up his doubts during the course of the
arguments, and theparty appearing topersuadethe authority
by reasoned argument to accept his point of view.
W.A.No.370 of 2017 9 2025:KER:60973
10. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered
opinionthatthelearnedSingleJudgehascommittedanerrorin
dismissing the appeal, inasmuch as the matter ought to have
been remanded to the competent authority to rehear the
appellant and pass orders by the same competent authority
again.
Consequently, the judgmentpassed by thelearned Single
Judgecannotbecountenanced.Accordinglythejudgmentdated
07.07.2016passedinW.P(C)No.3032of2013asalso Ext.P16order
dated 06.10.2012 are herebysetaside. The matter isremanded
back to the 3rd respondent to rehear the matter and grant
opportunityofpersonalhearingtoallconcernedandthereafter
pass order by the same authority as expeditiously aspossible,
preferably within two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment. The 3rd respondent must
invariably give a notice to the appellant for his personal
appearance on a time and date to be fixed by the 3rd
respondent. After hearing all concerned, the 3rd respondent
W.A.No.370 of 2017 10 2025:KER:60973
shall pass the final order within the aforesaid period of two
months.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ appeal stands
allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/12.08
