The court ruled on the incorrect application of pay revision standards affecting salary fixation for statutory roles.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was working as an Assistant Librarian in the 2^nd respondent University. The petitioner prayed for re-fixation of his salary with reference to the recommendations of the 10^th Pay Revision, after the petitioner was inducted into the UGC scale on the basis of an option exercised by him. Since that was not extended, the petitioner approached this Court in an earlier round of litigation. Pending the aforesaid litigation, in W.P.(C) No.12307 of 2019, Ext.P6 communication dated 1.8.2020 from the Principal Secretary to Government addressed to the University was produced. On the basis of Ext.P6 produced as above, the University took a stand before this Court that they were ready and willing to consider the claim of the petitioner and to issue appropriate orders. On the basis of the assurance given as above, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.12307 of 2019 by judgment dated 4.8.2022, directing the University to take up the claim made by the petitioner and to dispose of the same strictly in terms of the ‘Conversion Table’ as seen from Ext.P6 communication.

2. It is not in dispute that an order dated 20.10.2022 was also issued by the University, as permitted by this Court, strictly in terms of Ext.P6 communication.

3. It was only then that the petitioner realized that Ext.P6 was in fact with reference to the 9^th Pay Revision and that the Conversion Table referred to therein had also been prepared on the basis of the 9^th Pay Revision instead of the 10^th Pay Revision. Therefore, the petitioner sought to file R.P No.1219 of 2022 seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12307 of 2019 referred to above. This Court, noticing that the petitioner was justified in seeking a review, permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority or even this Court raising a challenge to the contents of Exts.P6 as well as P8. It is on that basis that the petitioner has instituted this captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P6 as well as Ext.P8.

4. Heard Sri. Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, and Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent University.

5. The issue arising for consideration is as to whether the consideration of the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P6 was justified or not. A perusal of Ext.P6 would show that, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the Conversion Table therein has been prepared with reference to the ‘9^th Pay Revision’, whereas the entitlement ought to have been with reference to the ‘10^th Pay Revision’. To that extent, the consideration made in Ext.P6 does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in Ext.P8, which is solely based on Ext.P6, is also not correct. This is all the more so since Ext.P6 is also with reference to the entitlement of the ‘Junior Librarian’, whereas admittedly the petitioner was an Assistant Librarian.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext.P6 and Ext.P8. The Government is directed to consider the petitioner’s prayer specifically with reference to the mandate under the 10^th Pay Revision and to arrive at a Conversion Table with reference to the mandate thereunder, and the University shall act on that basis and issue appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner would also be entitled to the consequential benefits on the basis of the fixation to be carried out as above, to be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months a