BHASKARAN Vs. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Labour Officer in the Kerala Agricultural University, the 1st respondent herein. For the purpose of pay revision, the post of Labour Officer is grouped along with those of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comproller/Administrative Officer Grade-II/ Recruitment officer. That was so, for all pay revisions namely, 1992 pay revision, 1997 pay revision and 2004 pay revision. In the 2004 pay revision, the scales of pay of group of post namely Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Labour Officer/Recruitment Officer/Administrative Officer grade - II was revised from Rs. 7800-12975 plus special pay of Rs.200/- to Rs. 12,930- 20250. In the very same pay revision order by adding a note it was prescribed that Assistant Registrars/Assistant Comptrollers/Labour Officer/Administrative Office grade-II, a Recruitment Officer will be allowed higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 16650-23200 in the ratio of 2:1. Ext.P4 is the extract from the pay revision order in respect of the same. In accordance with Ext. P4, the university fixed the cadre strength of the said group of posts as 19 with effect from 25.03.2006, with 13 posts in the lower grade of Rs. 12930- 20250 and 6 posts in the higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 16,620-23200. From 1.07.2006 also the same proportion was prescribed. According to the petitioner, in accordance with Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, on the basis of the combined seniority of the incumbents of all the posts, the petitioner is also entitled to the higher grade scale of pay of Rs. 16,650- 23200. The petitioner submits that by Ext.P2, a provisional seniority list of the Assistant Registrars/Assistant Comptrollers/Administrative Officers grade II/Labour Officer/ Recruitment Officers as on 1.1.2000, was published, before the petitioner became the Labour Officer on 22.11.2006, which would show that these posts were grouped together for the purpose of grant of pay revision benefits like ratio promotion. The petitioner contends that in the combined seniority list of incumbents in the said group of posts, respondents 2 and 3 are junior to the petitioner, they having been appointed to the posts by Ext. P5 and P6 with effect from 1.1.2007 and 1.3.2007 respectively, whereas the petitioner was appointed as Labour Officer with effect from 22.11.2006 by Ext.P1 order dated 22.05.2007. But overlooking the seniority of the petitioner respondents 2 and 3 were inducted into the higher grade of 16,650-23200 with effect from 1.07.2007 by Ext. P7 order dated 3.7.2007. Against the same the petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation. Immediately on receiving the representation, Ext. P9 provisional seniority list was published for the said group of posts excluding Labour Officer from the group. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 representation against the seniority list also. Subsequently by Ext.P11 order dated 5.12.2007 respondents 2 and 3 were promoted to the next higher post of Deputy Registrars/Deputy Comptroller/ Administrative Officer Grade -I with effect from 1.12.2007. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A statement has been filed by the university taking the stand that, Ext.P3 order fixing the cadre strength was modified by Ext.R1(a) excluding the post of Labour Officer insofar as the post of Labour Officer is an isolated post and the other posts are inter-changeable. They would also take the stand that the 2004 pay revision order has also been amended as evidenced by Ext.R1(b). Therefore, according to them the petitioner being a Labour Officer is not entitled to the higher grade granted as per the pay revision order.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the pay revision orders are approved by the government and adopted by the executive committee of the university. That being so, the Registrar doesn't have any power to amend the same. Even otherwise Ext. R1(b) cannot constitute an amendment of the pay revision order. Ext. R1(b) is only a note issued by the Registrar to the Comptroller requesting to issue necessary corrections to the pay revision order. As such Ext. R1 (a) and R1(b) cannot be accepted as with jurisdiction and the same should be treated as non-est. In Ext.P4 pay revision order, the posts of Assistants registrar/ Assistant comptroller/Labour Officer / Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer grade-II are grouped together for the purpose of pay revision and all of of them together were allowed higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 16,650-23200 in the ratio of 2:1. It is pursuant to the pay revision order that, Ext.P3 cadre strength has been fixed for the said group of posts. The Registrar cannot, by a stroke of pen erase the pay revision order with any authority whatsoever. Therefore, the petitioner continues to be entitled to the ratio promotion to the higher grade as provided in Ext. P4 pay revision order. It is not disputed before me that, in the particular cadre in question in the combined seniority respondents 2 and 3 are junior to the petitioner. Since the respondents 2 and 3 have been given the higher grade scale of pay of Rs.16,650-23,200, the petitioner, being senior to them is entitled to that higher grade scale of pay ahead of respondents 2 and 3. Since the respondents 2 and 3 were granted the said higher scale of pay with effect from 1.7.2007, the petitioner is also entitled to that higher grade with effect from 01.07.2007. There would be a direction to the 1st respondent to grant to the petitioner the higher grade scale of pay of Rs.16,650-23,200 with effect from 1.7.2007. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible,at any rate, within 2 months from the date of the receipt of copy of this judgment.