The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The grievance voiced by him in this writ petition is regarding the alleged wrong interpretation of Ext.P1 long term settlement signed between the Electricity Board and its unions on the basis of Ext.P5 clarificatory circular issued by the Board in respect of the long term settlement. By Ext.P1 long term settlement, the management and the unions agreed for revision of scales of pay of the workmen which contained the mode of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay. Consequently the petitioner's pay in the revised scale was fixed by Ext.P2 order in accordance with the Rules of fixation given in Clause 8 of Ext.P1. Later on, that was sought to be modified on the basis of Ext.P5 Circular and excess amounts were directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The reason for the same is that prior to the revision of pay the petitioner was actually getting salary less than what he was to get in the minimum of the revised scale of pay prescribed for the petitioner. Under Clause 8(g) of Ext.P1 it was stipulated that the next increment of the employee whose salary was fixed in the revised scale of pay would be given on the date on which the normal increment falls due in the pre-revision scale. The pay of the petitioner was to be fixed with effect from 01.08.1993 as per Ext.P1. The petitioner's normal increment date was 1st September of every year. Petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay on 01.08.1993. Since prior to the revision he was drawing pay less than that in the minimum of the revised scale of pay, in order to fix the pay of the petitioner in the minimum of the revised scale of pay, Rs.104/-was to be added. Since the petitioner's normal date of increment was 1st of September as per Clause 8(g) of Ext.P1, he was given increment on 01.09.1993. Next year he was given his next increment on 01.09.1994. The Electricity Board took the view that since in order to make the petitioner's pay in the minimum of revised scale of pay an amount of Rs.104/- had to be added, he should not be given the increment due to him on 01.09.1993. It is consequent to the same that by Ext.P3 the so called excess amount drawn by the petitioner is sought to be recovered. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the said recovery by filing O.P.No.5315 of 1999, in which the learned Judge of this Court was passed the following judgment :-

"The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3 and P6 orders in this Original Petition. Ext.P3 is the order by which the salary has been revised and the same has been done relying on Ext.P6 circular. Ext.P1 is the Board order implementing the settlement with the workmen dated 2.8.95. Article IV of the said settlement contains detailed provisions regarding the revision of wages and salaries including fixation of pay. As per Clause 8

(g) of Ext.P1, if the fixation of salary is in the revised scale of pay, the next increment will be paid on the date on which normal increment would have been due to the employee in the pre-revised scale. The petitioner was granted that benefit. But according to the respondents, at the time of fixation of his pay, his pay was far below the minimum of the revised scale of pay and as a result Rs.104/- were added to the basic pay of the petitioner to make it reach the minimum of the scale of pay. The said amount granted is more than the value of the increment and therefore, persons like the petitioner whose basic pay was far below the minimum of the scale of pay were not eligible for the benefit under Clause 8(g). It has been so ordered as per Ext.P6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer cannot modify Ext.P1 order by issuing Ext.P6 Circular. There is considerable force in the submission. But what has been done as per Ext.P6 is only to fill the lacuna in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is silent as to the case of persons whose basic pay after adding the minimum