SAROJINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The audit objection leading to refixation of pay of the petitioner is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Even though the petitioner approached the Government in the matter, the view taken by the Government as per Ext.P9 order is adverse to the pleas raised by the petitioner.We are concerned with the benefit of weightage granted as per G.O. (P).No. 145/2006/Fin, dated 25.03.2006 (2004 pay revision order). The pay and allowances of Government employees and teachers were revised with effect from 01.07.2004 as per the said Government Order. Annexure-2 to the said order contains the Rules for fixation of pay in the revised scale. Rule 5(1) provides for Service Weightage. The petitioner opted to come over to the revised scale with effect from 01.07.2004 and her pay was fixed at ' 8,990/- from the said date in the scale of pay of ' 8390-13270/-. While fixing her pay, she was granted three increments as service weightage for 13 years of service of which nine years was as part-time teacher. Ext.P2 is the pay fixation statement.

(2.) This was objected by the audit as per Ext.P3 stating that part-time service cannot be reckoned for granting service weightage.

(3.) The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Government. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the Note to Rule 5(1) of Annexure-2 to Ext.Pl does not exclude part-time service which have been reckoned for normal increments, for the purpose of grant of weightage. What is specified under the said Note for granting weightage is the service qualifying for normal increments in the scale of pay. But the Government while disposing of the representation of the petitioner was of the view that even though part-time teachers are getting periodical increments in the scale of pay admissible to them, the part-time service cannot be reckoned for weightage as it was the practice during the past pay revisions also.