SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
ABDUL HAMEED KP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5949 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, SMT.V.BEENA
For the Respondents: SMT. V.A. HARITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Court directed timely consideration of a pay fixation claim, highlighting procedural fairness in addressing delays.

Headnote:This judgment considers the appropriate pay fixation for the petitioner, who retired as a Lab Assistant but was placed at a lower salary scale post-promotion. Noting the delay issue, the Court directs the first respondent to address the pending representation within three months. Permitting the respondent to evaluate the delay and the merit of the claim is crucial for justice. The decision renders a clear direction for timely resolution of the representation.

Table of Content
1. pay fixation issues related to retirement and promotion. (Para 1 , 2)
2. addressing procedural points regarding representation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's directive for timely consideration of representation. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, while working as Lab Assistant in the 4th respondent’s School, retired from service on 29.02.2008. He commenced service as Peon with effect from 01.06.1971 and was given promotion by-transfer as Lab Assistant on

01.06.1999.

2. At the time of promotion, he was drawing pay in the scale of ₹3,050–5,230. However, on promotion as Lab Assistant, his pay was fixed in the lower scale of ₹2,650-4,150 and was refixed at ₹4,075/- on 01.04.2000. Though the petitioner’s claim for pay fixation on promotion, corresponding to the pay he was drawing in the lower post, deserves acceptance in order to remove the anomaly, the same was not allowed. Resultantly, the petitioner has been paid salary in the promoted post lower than the pay he was actually in receipt of before his promotion. On completion of 30 years, the petitioner is entitled to receive 4th Higher Grade, which also has not been granted. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent, which is pending consideration.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and 5.

4. The Government Pleader would oppose the writ petition stating that the issue is stale as the cause of action relates back to the year 2008.

5. Be that as it may, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent in this regard. As the petitioner has taken up the matter to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent can consider the issue of delay also, if any.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top