Administrative authorities must adhere to established legal principles and court judgments regarding salary protection and increments for promoted employees.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the cases raise the same question of law and hence they are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In W.P.(C) No.31505 of 2023, the petitioner has approved service as HSST (Junior) Computer Science from 26.08.2002 against a regular vacancy in SBHSS, Changanacherry. On completion of 15 years of service as HSST (Junior) Computer Science, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade. While working as HSST (Junior) Computer Science, the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Computer Science) from 11.12.2017 onwards against a regular vacancy in St.George HSS, Muttar, another School under the same Corporate Management. The appointment as HSST was also approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Education.

3. The petitioner states that his pay in the post of HSST (Computer Science) was fixed at Rs. 52,800/- with effect from 11.12.2017 by protecting his pay on promotion against post carrying lower scale, as per special rules. The petitioner was also granted annual increments during subsequent years. However, in Ext.P5, it was stated that next increment is due on 01.12.2018. The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Education informed the Principal that since appointment as HSST Computer Science from 11.12.2017 is against a post carrying lower scale, the petitioner is entitled only the fixation and hence pay alone will be protected and increment date will not be protected.

4. The petitioner approached the authorities for opting a date of next increment pursuant to the pay fixation. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier filing W.P.(C) No.33313 of 2022. This Court, as per Ext.P14 judgment, found that the legal issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.1556 of 2021 . This Court, therefore, directed to reconsider the matter in the light of judgment dated 13.12.2021 in W.A. No.1556 of 2021 .

5. The petitioner contends that in spite of the directions given by this Court to consider the issue in the light of the judgment in W.A. No.1556 of 2021 , the 1^st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner stating the same reason. Ext.P15 is unsustainable. In the facts of the case the respondents are compellable to permit the petitioner to opt for appropriate date of next increment / re-fixation benefit.

6. W.P.(C) No.1406 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as HST. The petitioner was promoted and appointed by transfer as HSST on 31.08.2015. The petitioner has not been given the refixation benefits. The 2^nd respondent has issued a letter stating that pay protection and consequential increments granted to the petitioner were wrong and the petitioner has to refund the amount. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside Ext.P3 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to protection of salary, consequential increments and grades based on Rule 37(b) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules .

7. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

8. The question of grant of protection benefits after refixation of pay when a person is appointed to a post having lower scale, has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14753 of 2020 . A learned Single Judge of this Court, considered the impact of Rule 37 of Part-I, Kerala Service Rules and held as follows:-

However, the Government decision No.4 under Rule 37 (b) specifically provides that an officer officiating in a post, when appointed to a higher post on the advice of the Public Service Commission or otherwise, is eligible for his initial pay being fixed under this Rule and is also entitled to the benefit of re-fixation contemplated in the last sentence of sub-rule (a). It is therefore evident that in every case where there is an appointment to a higher post by direct recruitment or otherwise, the benefit of re-fixation of pay by granting a notional increment as provided in Rule 28A is contemplated. It is clear that Gove