In contempt proceedings, the court determined compliance with prior rulings depends on the applicability of service rules, confirming that pay protection applies only when conditions are satisfied.

JUDGMENT

Cont.Case(C) No. 1627 of 2025

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026

1. This Contempt Case is filed by Petitioner Nos.1 to 7, 10, 11 and 13 to 19 in W.P.(C) No.11021 of 2016, which was disposed of by this Court as per Annexure I judgment dated 11.08.2022.

2. W.P.(C) No.11021 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioners who are Superintendents in KSRTC, challenging Ext.P28 therein, rejecting their request for stepping up of their Pay Scale on par with that of the 3^rd Respondent therein, who is also working as a Superintendent and junior to them. The contention of the petitioners was that the 3^rd respondent in the Writ Petition happened to draw Higher Scale of Pay than the Petitioners as the Petitioners were promoted directly from the post of Upper Division Clerk (Selection Grade) ['UDC (SG)', for short] to the post of Superintendents for want of qualified employees in the Grades of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant and the 3^rd Respondent in the Writ Petition was promoted to the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant before being promoted to the post of Superintendent and she got one increment in the post of the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant. In Annexure I, this Court held that when all the conditions encompassed in Ruling No.1, under Rule 28A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’, for short) are satisfied, then the Scales of Pay of the petitioners ought to have been fixed in the manner mandated therein; that the petitioners were directly promoted from UDC (SG) to the post of Superintendents solely because there was no other person available in the category of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant at the relevant time and it was not on account of any request from them for promotion, and therefore, their pay ought to have been protected, at least qua their junior. It is further held that this Court cannot find in favour of the stand taken by the KSRTC that the 3^rd Respondent in the Writ Petition is entitled to the Pay Scale fixed for the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant also, while reckoning her promotion to the post of Superintendent, since she worked in the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant also. This Court set aside Ext.P28 therein with a consequential direction to the Competent Authority of the KSRTC to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent in the Writ Petition, adverting to the impact of Rule 28A of Part I KSR - especially Ruling No.1 thereunder, culminating in an appropriate new order and necessary action, and depending upon the result of the afore exercise, and if the KSRTC is to find that petitioners are entitled to a higher Scale of Pay, then necessary action shall be taken to fix it, at least on par with the 3^rd respondent in the Writ Petition and to disburse the eligible amounts to them.

3. The Petitioners had filed Con.Case(C) No.867/2023 before this Hon'ble Court earlier, and thereupon, the Respondent No.2 passed an Order dated 31.03.2023 rejecting the claim of the Petitioners. Con.Case(C) No.867/2023 was disposed of by this Court as per Annexure III judgment dated 19.06.2023, holding that the Order dated 31.03.2023 does not appear to be in adherence to the spirit or tenor of the Annexure I judgment and closing the Contempt Case recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Order dated 31.03.2023 will be withdrawn and a fresh order will be issued after hearing the petitioners not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Court had given liberty to the Petitioners to seek a rehearing of the Contempt Case in the even