Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
BASIL SARGEES – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 23191/2014
Employment - Petition for Salary Adjustment - Act Section List - The court addressed issues regarding the classification of the petitioner’s salary, emphasizing compliance with procedural norms for appeals and revision petitions while ensuring due process in salary disbursement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the approval of their appointment to be considered under 'daily wages' rather than a 'scale of pay'. Following an unfavorable ruling on an appeal and subsequent revision petitions by both the petitioner and the Manager, the case was brought before the court for resolution.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the relevant authority to review the revision petitions and issue a decision within three months, emphasizing that the interim stay on the previous order necessitated the release of the petitioner's due salary upon the filing of an undertaking.
Issues: Whether the classification of the petitioner's salary was lawful and if the appeal and revision processes were appropriately adhered to amidst the ongoing dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements in administrative decisions affecting employment and salary, mandating a timely review of the appeals while balancing the need for due process.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for timely review of the revision petitions and conditional release of the petitioner's salary.
JUDGMENT
The approval of appointment of the petitioner sought for was ordered to be treated as 'daily wages' instead of 'scale of pay', being aggrieved of which an appeal was preferred before the DEO in respect of the 1st academic year. There was a remand directing the AEO to pass fresh orders in the manner as specified therein. But the same did not turn to be fruitful as far as the petitioner is concerned and Ext.P4 order came to be passed placing reliance on G.O. No. 144/13. Met with the situation, the Manager of the School preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 1st respondent who considered the matter and passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the appeal which according to the petitioner is per se arbitrary and illegal in all respects.
2. The petitioner has moved the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P8 revision petition against the impugned order. The Manager has preferred Ext.P9 before the very same authority challenging Ext.P7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government, after considering the merits involved, thought it fit to entertain the matter and it was accordingly, that Ext.P10 interim order came to be passed on 14.8.2014, whereby further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 dated 10.7.2014 have been stayed pending finalization of the revision petition.
3. After hearing both the sides, the second respondent is directed to consider Exts. P8 and P9 revision petitions preferred by the petitioner and the Manager respectively and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the impugned order has already been stayed by the Government as per Ext.P10, the salary due to the petitioner shall be released on filing an 'undertaking' to the effect that the petitioner is ready and willing to reimburse the amount, if the outcome of the revision petitions goes adverse to his claim. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
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
