SALIM P.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners joined as CLR workers of the Shrimp Hatchery, Azhikode. Subsequently, they were appointed as SLR workers. By Ext.P1 order, the scales of pay and service conditions of the petitioners and others were brought on par with SLR workers of Agriculture and Live Stock Department with effect from 1.4.1996. By Ext.P2, scales of pay and service conditions of Farm Workers of Agriculture Live Stock and Soil Conservation Department were revised with effect from 1.3.1991. By Ext.P3, the SLR workers, who were working for more than 20 years in the Fisheries Department, were directed to be regularised as regular workers. The petitioners were included in the list of workers to which Ext.P3 order is applicable. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that although they were regularised in service, their salary were not revised as done in the case of workers of Agriculture Live Stock and Soil Conservation Department. By Ext.P4, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Azhikode recommended to the Director of Fisheries for revision of scales of pay of the petitioners and others. But by Ext.P5 order, the Government took the stand that since the service benefits granted to SLR workers of the Fisheries Department are better than those of the SLR workers of the Public Works Department, no revision of scales of pay can be granted. Still thereafter, by Ext.P6 dated 25.3.2003, the Assistant Director of Fisheries recommended to the Director of Fisheries to revise the scales of pay of the petitioners and others. The petitioners now seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the recommendation in Ext.P6 and to pass appropriate orders thereon.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader argues in support of Ext.P5 order. According to him, in so far as the petitioners are not regular workers included in the special rules, the petitioners cannot be given scales of pay and revision thereof as claimed by the petitioners.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Going by Ext.P3, the petitioners and others have been appointed as regular workers of the Department with retirement benefits and Provident Fund benefits. Therefore, I do not think that when all other Government employees were given revision of scales of pay, they should be totally excluded in the matter of revision of pay. Therefore, even though they may not have a right as such, they cannot be discriminated in the matter. In fact, by Ext.P6, the Assistant Director of Fisheries has recommended such revision of scales of pay. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to take a second look into the matter.