P S KALAYANAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these cases belong to the P.W.D. and Agricultural Deprtments. Neverhteless, these cases were heard together in view of thefadt that a common question, viz. whether for fization of opay in the Higher Grade granted to benefit stagnating officers it is Rule 28-A or Rule 30 of the K.S.R. Part I that would apply arises for decision inthese cases. If it is Rule 28-A that applies as contended by the petitioners, they would stand to gain in so far as pay is fixed in the higher scale at the stage available therein just above what is reaced after adding a notional increment the lower scale. On the other hand, if it is Rule 30 that should apply, as contended by the State, the said benefit would not be available to the petitioner and the pay will have to be fixed in the same or nest lower stage in the higher scale.

(2.) Mr. B. Krishnan Mani, who appeared for the petitioners in the majoprity of these cases and Mr.K.A. Abraham, who appeared in O.P.No.16544/92, submitted that the higher scales were granted taking into account the recommendations of the successive pay commissions based on the consideration that the Assisstant Engineers and the Junior Agricultural Officers involved in these cases were stagnating in the said post for long and that the grant of grade has therefore to be treated as a promotion in which case it is Rule 28A that should apply for fixing pay. On the other hand the stand of the learned Government Pleader is that though the grant of Higher Grade was to alleviate the difficulties of officers like the petitioners arising from stagnation, what is granted is not a promotion; but only a higher scale and that in such circumstances, it is Rule 30 that would apply.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, Rule 28A of Part I KSR is extracted below: