JAYASANKARA V N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Trade Instructor working under the 2nd respondent. Originally both the Trade Instructor and the Driver under the 2nd respondent were in the same scale of pay as is evident from Exts.P1 and P2. But in 1998 pay revision and 2006 pay revision, the Drivers were given higher scales of pay without any increase in the scale of pay to the Trade Instructors. According to the petitioner, this amounts to discrimination in the matter of treating similarly placed employees of the 2nd respondent differently. Pointing out this alleged illegality, the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 representation before the 1st respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P12 expeditiously.

(2.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also.