Kerala High Court
Jijo Tom vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2013
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/13TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 24164 of 2013 (U)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
1. JIJO TOM, COMPUTER OPERATOR
C-APT (CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING) NELLIYANI
VALLICHIRA P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. SHIBU OUSEPH, PRINTING INSTRUCTOR
C-APT (CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING) GOVERNMENT
L.P.SCHOOL, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ERNAKULAM
3. JUBY MATHEW, COMPUTER OPERATOR
C-APT (CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING)
NOW ON DEPUTATION AT KUDUMBASHREE DISTRICT MISSION OFFICE
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O
IDUKKI - 685 603.
4. REEJA KRISHNAN, COMPUTER OPERATOR
C-APT (CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING)
NOW ON DEPUTATION AT KUDUMBASHREE DISTRICT MISSION OFFICE
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O
IDUKKI - 685 603.
5. JESSY JOSEPH, DTP OPERATOR
KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING
SUB CENTRE, KOTTAYAM, PALA
NELLIYANI VALLICHIRA P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM.
6. ALICE JOSEPH, DTP OPERATOR
KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING
SUB CENTRE, KOTTAYAM, PALA
NELLIYANI, VALLICHIRA P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING (C-APT)
VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING (C-APT)
VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT)/A&E)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
R1 &4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24164 of 2013 (U)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.594/2012/H.EDN DATED 3-9-2013
ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT ANNEXURE.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF G.O(P)NO.85/2011/FIN. DATED
26-2-2011 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE.
EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.143/2011/FIN. DATED 30-3-2011.
EXT.P4 -TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 10-9-2013 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
-----------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). No.24164 OF 2013
==========================
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are working as DTP Operator/Computer Operator/Instructor (Printing) under respondents 2 and 3. The scales of pay attached to their respective posts were Rs.6680-10790, 7990- 12930 and 7990-12930. As per Ext.P2, the said scales of pay were revised respectively to Rs.11620-20240, 13900-24040 and 13900- 24040. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite such revisions, their pay was wrongly fixed. In the case of petitioners in the category of DTP Operator, it was fixed in the scale of pay Rs.9190-15,780. In respect of the petitioners belonging to the other two categories, their pay was fixed in the scale of pay Rs.9940-16580. Essentially, the contention of the petitioners is that such a wrong fixation is the outcome of fixation of scales of pay taking into account the annexure W.P.(C).24164/13 2 attached to Ext.P1. In this context, it is to be noted that respondents 2 and 3 also identified certain anomalies and immediately they were brought to the notice of the first respondent. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is regarding the delay in the matter of consideration of such anomalies in the matter of fixation of pay taking note of Ext.P2, by the first respondent. In fact, the third respondent has sought for clarifications as is obvious from Ext.P4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 was received by the Government and the anomalies noted and matters on which clarifications are sought for, are under consideration. Since it is a matter pertaining to the fixation of pay based on the revision effected as per Ext.P2, a longer period is required for rectifying the anomalies, if any, it is further submitted. In such circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the clarifications sought by the third respondent after taking into the revision effected as per Exts.P1 and P2 and pass appropriate orders/clarifications as expeditiously as possible, to enable W.P.(C).24164/13 3 respondents 2 and 3 to take further steps in the matter.
Disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).24164/13 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
W.P.(C).24164/13 5