SURESH CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.5.2009, has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the re-fixation of his pay and denial of protection of his pay.

(2.) The petitioner commenced his service as Assistant Gr.II in Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM) on 29.11.1978. The petitioner claims that on establishment of Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), he was picked up from the CWRDM, offering higher pay and was posted in JNTBGRI w.e.f 07.05.1980. While continuing with all such benefits, he retired from service on 31.5.2009, while working as Assistant Registrar. It is stated that though he was eligible for promotion as on 28.07.2004, he was denied the same. Since terminal benefits due to the petitioner were not paid, he submitted Ext.P2 representation on 06.01.2010. Thereafter, the Registrar of the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 order dated 27.09.2010 re-fixing his pay allegedly in rectification of irregularities found in the pay fixation of employees under the 3rd respondent, based on the final report of rectification committee. The scale of pay of 7800-12975 (pre-revised) which the petitioner had been drawing was reduced to 7200-11400 and on revision of pay with effect from 01.07.2004, the revised scale of 12930-20250 w.e.f 1.7.2004 was reduced to 11910-19350. As a result of this, the basic pay of the petitioner as on 1.7.2008 was reduced from 19800 to 17550. Ext.P4 pay fixation statement prepared by the rectification committee was also furnished along with Ext.P3 order, where the pay fixed in the case of the petitioner was found irregular. The benefit of assessment promotion granted to the petitioner from 28.07.1997 was found not admissible as per order dated 2.8.1999. On receipt of Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation pointing out the illegal reduction of pay in the case of the petitioner who had joined the JNTBGRI expecting prospects. Though he requested to drop the decision to re-fix and reduce his pay, no action was taken. Whileso, as per Ext.P6 order dated 02.02.2011, the petitioner was granted assessment promotion w.e.f 28.07.2004. This order would show that the petitioner who was an Assistant Registrar in the scale of pay of 7200-11400 (prerevised) [11910-19350 (revised)] stood promoted as Assistant Registrar in the scale of 7800-12975 (prerevised) [12930-20250 (revised)] w.e.f 28.07.2004. The assessment promotion in Ext.P6 order was stated to have been issued based on the recommendation of assessment committee held on 25.05.2010. Consequent to that his pay was fixed at Rs.16650 as on 28.7.2004 in the scale of pay of 12930-20250, as per Ext.P7 proceedings dated 03.02.2011 and as on 01.7.2008 it was fixed at Rs.13,450/-. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Director on 08.08.2011 requesting to restore his pay in the scale of pay of Rs.7800-12975 and thereafter to fix his pay in the scale of pay attached to the promotion post from 28.07.2004 and to fix the same as Rs.24,850/- as on 1.7.2008. He pointed out that the grant of promotions to him and fixation of his pay were done in his case by the JNTBGRI in accordance with the decision of the executive committee; whereas his pay was reduced by a committee appointed by the KSCSTE without any authority. He therefore requested the Director to place his case before the reconstituted anomaly committee. Thereafter, Ext.P9 representation was submitted before the Chief Minister of Kerala on 21.3.2012 pointing out the denial of secretarial scale to the administrative staff despite the decision of the executive committee in its meeting held on 21.07.1980. He stated that the Government had rejected the report of the committee appointed by KSCSTE as per G.O(Rt) No.1/09/S&TD dated 3.1.2009 and had directed the JNTBGRI to rectify the pay fixation arrears, if any. Pointing out that he is eligible for promotion in the scale of pay 20700-26600 as on 01.07.2004, he stated that the reduction of pay was illegal. He submitted another pay fixation statement opting the date for assessment promotion w.e.f 28.07.2004. It was followed by Ext.P10 representation dated 15.01.2014 to the Chief Minister pointing out the reduction of even his scale of pay after his retirement. The petitioner thereafter, along with one Sri K.G.Ajith Kumar, submitted a reminder Ext.P10(c) on 21.09.2015 requesting for speedy action. The petitioner points out that a similarly situated employee, who was working as a Gardener had approached this Court in W.P(c).No.34537/2011 when this Court set aside the order relating to the reduction of pay. The Writ Petition was filed under the said circumstances challenging the reduction and refixation of pay. The petitioner seeks restoration of pay in tune with Ext.P9. Along with additional affidavit the petitioner has produced Ext.P15 judgment dt.18.12.2018 in W.P(c).No.21468 of 2017.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a statement and the 1 st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that it had been following State Government pattern in the case of administrative staff and CSIR pattern for scientific staff. It is stated that the inspection wing of the Finance Department of the Government of Kerala found serious irregularities in the fixation of pay of the employees under the 3rd respondent and had instructed the 2nd respondent Council to ensure corrective measures. A committee with Smt. N.G Vijayalekshmi, Retd. Additional Secretary to Government and former Controller of Administration of the Council as Chairperson was constituted for the same with 3 other members. It is stated that the committee examined the service books and personal files of the employees for the period from the date of their appointment till 2008 and found that excess pay was drawn by the employees including the petitioner and a pay rectification report was submitted as per order dated 03.01.2009. Government had directed that the excess pay drawn for the period upto 31.12.2007 need not be recovered. It is stated that on grant of the first assessment promotion to the petitioner, his pay was erroneously fixed in the scale of Rs.7800-12975 from 28.07.1997; whereas the committee found the petitioner eligible only for the scale of 7200-11400. On retirement, the petitioner was initially granted only 75% of the benefits calculated on the basis of the pay re-fixed in the lower scale. It is stated that the balance 25% was also paid subsequently.