Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chandran – Respondent
WA No.77 of 2021
Decided on : 18-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Special Rules – Rule 4 – Kerala High Court Act – Section 5 – Retirement – Re-fixing pay – Petitioner entered in the service of Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM), one of the member institutions of Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (R2), on 29.11.1978. – With the establishment of Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), several efficient employees, then worked in various sister concerns, were absorbed in the Institute. – Petitioner was also absorbed offering higher pay scale. – He joined the service of JNTBGRI on 7.5.1980. – He retired as Assistant Registrar from the service of JNTBGRI on 31.5.2009 – After the retirement of the petitioner, the Registrar of JNTBGRI served Exhibit P3 order, re-fixing his pay on the basis of the final report submitted by a rectification committee, to him.
Finding of the court: Single Judge held that on assessment promotion from the post of Assistant Registrar granted to the petitioner in Exhibit P6 order with effect from 28.7.2004, he is entitled to get his pay fixed in the higher time scale with reference to the actual pay he was drawing as on 28.7.2004 and he would also be entitled to get the terminal benefits based on the pay thus fixed. – Single Judge consequently set aside Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4 re-fixing the pay of the petitioner from 28.7.1997 to a lower scale and also set aside Exhibit P6 to the extent it relates to the pay scale of Assistant Registrar and the pay scale on assessment promotion. – Consequently fixation of pay on assessment promotion as per Exhibit P7 was also set aside by the learned Single Judge. – Single Judge also declared that the petitioner would be entitled to get his pay restored as was fixed prior to the issuance of Exhibit P3 order and that he is entitled to get his pay fixed on grant of assessment promotion with effect from 28.7.2004 in the higher scale of Assistant Registrar which he was actually drawing – It can safely be concluded that the decision taken by the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice. – There is absolutely no justification in re-fixing the pay of the petitioner after his retirement and to recover the excess amount allegedly paid to him from 1.1.2008 onwards from his terminal benefits based on a rectification committee report. – Court is of the firm view that findings of the learned Single Judge require no interference. – Impugned judgment was passed on 8.6.2020. – Respondents will restore the pay of the petitioner which he was drawing till his retirement before issuance of Exhibits P3 and P4 orders and thereafter, fix his pay on assessment promotion with effect from 28.7.2004. – Based on that the respondents shall re-fix the terminal benefits and disburse the benefits due to him within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
Result: Writ Appeals Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
K.Babu, J.
The judgment dated 8.6.2020 in Writ Petition No.32985 of 2015, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, is under challenge in these intra-court appeals filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
2. The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Department of Science, Technology & Environment, respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition, is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.77 of 2021. The Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment represented by its Executive Vice President, respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition, is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.557 of 2021.
3. The Writ Petitioner is respondent No.1 in both the appeals. The other official respondents in the Writ Petition are respondents 2 to 4 in these appeals.
4. We have heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt.Ann Susan George, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
5. The parties will be referred to as per their status in the Writ Petition.
6. The petitioner entered in the service of Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM), one of the member institutions of Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (R2), on 29.11.1978. With the establishment of Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), several efficient employees, then worked in various sister concerns, were absorbed in the Institute. Thus, the petitioner was also absorbed offering higher pay scale. He joined the service of JNTBGRI on 7.5.1980. He retired as Assistant Registrar from the service of JNTBGRI on 31.5.2009.
7. After the retirement of the petitioner, the Registrar of JNTBGRI served Exhibit P3 order dated 27.9.2010, re-fixing his pay on the basis of the final report submitted by a rectification committee, to him.
8. The petitioner was drawing the pay in the scale of Rs.7800-12975 (pre-revised). His scale of pay was reduced to Rs.7200-11400 and on revision of pay with effect from 1.7.2004, the revised pay scale of Rs.12930-20250 was reduced to Rs.11910-19350. Resultantly the basic pay of the petitioner, as on 1.7.2008, was reduced from Rs.19,800/-to Rs.17,550/-.
9. The petitioner was also served with Exhibit P4 pay fixation statement, stated to have been prepared by the rectification committee, along with Exhibit P3 order. In Exhibit P4, it was reported that the pay fixed in the case of the petitioner was found to be irregular. The benefit of assessment promotion granted to the petitioner, with effect from 28.7.1997, was also not found admissible as per order dated 2.8.1999. The petitioner, on receipt of Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4, submitted Exhibit P5 representation dated 12.10.2010 stating that the reduction of his pay was illegal, especially, in view of the fact that he had joined JNTBGRI expecting higher prospects. No positive action was taken in Exhibit P5 representation. While so, Exhibit P6 order dated 2.2.2011 was issued, by which the petitioner was granted assessment promotion with effect from 28.7.2004. As per Exhibit P6, the petitioner, who was an Assistant Registrar in the scale of pay of Rs.7200-11400 (pre-revised) [11910-19350 revised], stood promoted as Assistant Registrar in the scale of Rs.7800-12975 (pre-revised) [12930-20250 (revised)] with effect from 28.7.2004. It is stated in Exhibit P6 that the assessment promotion was also given on the recommendation of the assessment committee held on 25.5.2010.
10. Consequent to this, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.16,650/-, as on 28.7.2004, in the pay scale of Rs.12930-20250 and, as on 1.7.2008, it was fixed at Rs.13,450/-. Aggrieved by the above decisions, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 representation before the Director of TBGRI on 8.8.2011, requesting to restore his pay in the scale of Rs.7800-12975 and thereafter to fix his pay in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
