IMPORTANT POINTS
The post of Treasurer is not one in the direct line of promotion for Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department, and further, Note (ii) to Rule (3) clearly mandates that the lien of the petitioners continued to be in the post of Junior Accountant that they occupied while opting for appointment as Treasurer, their appointment as Treasurer, for the purposes of Pay Revision orders, has to be seen as an appointment to an entry post. The specific provisions of Note (ii) to Rule 3 of the Special Rules, serve to distinguish these cases from those decided by this Court in W.A.No.341/2007 and W.A.No.1147/1998 where the Division Benches, although were concerned with similar appointments in other departments -The Forest Department and the Zilla Sainik Welfare Office respectively -were nevertheless not confronted with a provision similar to Note (ii) to R.3 of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Special Rules and the lien contemplated therein.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. These matters are before us consequent to the reference order dated 23.3.2010 in W.A.Nos.996/2009 and 1143/2009. The Writ Appeals were preferred against the judgments dated 4.2.2009 and 2.3.2009 of the learned Single Judges in W.P.(C).No.551/2005 and W.P. (C).No.22629/2005 respectively. In the said writ petitions, the issue that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners therein, who were working as Treasurers in the Treasury Department of the State, were entitled to a higher grade of pay in their posts on completion of eight years service in that post, based on the Pay Revision orders in force. It would appear that the petitioners therein had been granted the said higher grade of pay, but the orders granting the higher grade were subsequently cancelled by the Government, which took the view that, insofar as the post of Treasurer under the Treasury Subordinate Service was an entry post for the purposes of the Pay Revision orders, their entitlement to the higher grade pay would accrue only on completion of ten years in the post of Treasurer and not after 8 years service as was applicable to promotion posts.

2. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judges, who agreed with the stand taken by the Government, and hence, the writ petitioners approached the Division Bench through the intra-court appeals aforementioned. The Division Bench noticed a divergence between the views taken by the learned Single Judges in the writ petitions, with which they prima facie concurred, and the views taken by the Division Benches of this Court in two earlier cases, namely, W.A.Nos.1147/1998 and 341/2007, and thought it appropriate to refer the matter for consideration by a Full Bench. The reference order reads as follows:

“W.A.No.1143/2009:

The appellants are some of the writ petitioners. They were Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department. They were appointed by transfer as Treasurers. As per the Special Rules, there is a post of Head Treasurer, to which Treasurers can be promoted. But, according to the Government, the said post is not being filled up by promotion. The Treasurers will have their line of promotion as Junior Accountant/Senior Accountant, as the case may be and they will be further promoted in the direct line as Selection Grade Accountant, Junior Superintendent etc. The appellants, on completion of 8 years' service in the post of Treasurer, were granted higher grade. Later, it was withdrawn, on the ground that appointment by transfer to the post of Treasurer should be treated as direct recruitment and such appointees could get higher grade only on completion of 10 years' service. The matter was taken up before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal, upheld the contention of the official respondents. Hence this appeal.

2. In this case, the appellants relied on the judgments of this Court in W.A.No.1147/1998 and W.A.No.341/2007. According to them, both the judgments support their claim. We think, the judgment in W.A.No.341/2007 is directly in point.

3. But, the learned Government Pleader submits, those judgments were rendered without referring to the relevant clauses in the orders governing grant of higher grade. Therefore, he prayed for reconsideration of the matter.

4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. A person in an entry post is entitled to get higher grade on completion of 10 years and a second higher grade on completion of 8 years in the first promotion post, as per the Pay Revision Government order dated 25.11.1998. Clause 5.(1)(b)(11) of the said Government order explains the concept of entry post. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"The term 'entry post' shall be defined as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment by the Competent Authority. Appointments by transfer will also be treated as equivalent to direct recruitment for allowing the benefit of high