K K GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala Water Authority as Draftsman Grade I on 31.8.1991. At the time of retirement, the petitioner's scale of pay was ` 1650-3175. His retirement benefits were fixed and disbursed on the basis of that scale of pay of ` 1650-3175. By Ext. P1 order, his pension was re- fixed, where also the scale of pay taken was ` 1650-3175. THEreafter, the Government, by Ext. P2 order, ordered revision of pay and revision of pension for employees and retired employees of the Kerala Water Authority. THE revised scale of pay corresponding to the scale of pay of ` 1650-3175 is `12580-21780. While fixing the revised pension of the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P2 order, in Ext. P3, the scale of pay of the petitioner was taken as ` 11410-20680 instead of ` 12580-21780. This was objected to by the petitioner by filing Ext. P3(a) representation before the Managing Director. THE petitioner's superior officer, namely, the Executive Engineer, forwarded the said representation to the Accounts Officer of the Kerala Water Authority by Ext. P3 (b), recommending the claim of the petitioner for revision of pension in the revised scale of pay of ` 12580-21782 corresponding to the scale of pay of `1650-3175, which the petitioner was drawing at the time of retirement. But by Ext. P4 order, the Accounts Officer rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to that higher scale of pay but he was eligible only for an intermediate scale of pay corresponding to the revised scale of pay of ` 11410- 20680. THE Managing Director confirmed the same by Ext. P6 order on Ext. P5 representation of the petitioner. THE petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P6, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein also, the very same contention as in Exts.P4 and P6 is taken. From what I understand from the arguments advanced before me by the respondents is that the petitioner was not actually eligible for the higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Executive Engineer, which was given to him, probably on the premise that the petitioner did not have the qualifications prescribed for that post. I am of opinion that without appropriately revising the orders already passed re-fixing the higher grades, the respondents cannot take such a stand. The petitioner has produced Ext. P7 order dated 25.7.1991, whereby the Superintending Engineer had fixed the petitioner's higher grade as per which the petitioner was given the higher grade scale of pay of ` 1650-3175, which was the scale of pay the petitioner was drawing at the time of his retirement. Therefore, without appropriately revising Ext. P7, if, at this point of time, the respondent can validly do so, the petitioner cannot be denied pension on the basis of the revised scale of pay corresponding to ` 1650-3175, the scale of pay corresponding to which as per Ext. P2 Government Order is ` 12580-21780. Therefore, Exts.P4 and P6 are clearly vitiated. As recommended in Ext. P3(b), the petitioner is entitled to pension in the scale of pay of ` 12580- 21780, which is the scale of pay corresponding to the scale of pay of ` 1650-3175, which the petitioner was receiving at the time of his retirement. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P6 are quashed. It is declared that pursuant to Ext. P2 Government Order, the petitioner is entitled to have his pension revised in the scale of pay of ` 12580-21780, which is admittedly the scale of pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay of ` 1650-3175. Since, by Ext. P3 the pension has not been fixed accordingly, Ext. P3 is also quashed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner in the scale of pay of ` 12580-21780 and pay to the petitioner the arrears of monetary benefits arising therefrom as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above.