KERALA WATER AUTHORITY Vs. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED in this appeal is the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing recalculation of the pay of the 1st respondent (writ petitioner), in the cadre of Divisional Accountant to which post the 1st respondent was promoted; on the basis of Exhibit P3 by which his pay in the lower cadre of Junior Superintendent was stepped up to that drawn by his junior; and payment of arrears with 12% interest as also costs to be recovered from the 2nd respondent (7th respondent in the writ petition).

(2.) THE 1st respondent joined the Kerala Water Authority, hereinafter referred to as "Water Authority", as a Lower Division Clerk on 6.1.1984. While he was working as Junior Superintendent, Water Supply Division, Kollam, he requested that the anomaly in computing his pay, which was lesser than that of his junior, may be rectified. The pay of both the 1st respondent and his junior was fixed at the revised scale at Rs.1320.00 with effect from 1.3.1992. However, while the junior was granted increment as on 1.5.1992, the 1st respondent's increment was stated to be falling due on 1.2.1993. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent's pay was stepped up to Rs.1365.00 as on 1.5.1992 and subsequent increments were ordered to be on 1.5.1993, 1.5.1994 and 1.5.1995. This was done by Exhibit P3 dated 8.7.2008 by the Chief Engineer of the Water Authority.

(3.) IT is pertinent that the Water Authority though entered appearance before the learned Single Judge, no counter affidavit was filed. Considering the hardship to which the 1st respondent was put, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the writ petition and passed the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge found that Exhibit P3 passed in 2008 could not be cursorily upset by Exhibit P5 order. The objections raised with respect to non-compliance of Rule 16 of Annexure-II of Rules for fixation of pay in the revised scale, was specifically gone into in the impugned judgment. Rule 16 was noticed as relating to re-option; rather the prohibition against such re-option, except in cases involving retrospective revision of or change in scale of pay that takes effect on a date prior to the date of option exercised by the employee for pay revision. The learned Single Judge rightly found that there was no question of any option to be exercised by the employee in the instant case. It was not on a re-option that the date of increment of the 1st respondent was advanced from 1.2.1993 to 1.5.1992. It was on the basis of Exhibit P3 order that such revision was attempted, that too by the organization and not by a voluntary act of the 1st respondent-employee. Exhibit P3 was also acted upon and pay disbursed in accordance with that for the last many years. It was on the request of the 1st respondent, that too on promotion as a self drawing officer, for issuance of pay slip; that the objection was raised and the tables were turned against the 1st respondent negating Exhibit P3 order. It is surprising that Exhibit P5 order, by which such arbitrary exercise was done, also directed recovery of excess pay and allowance fixed as per Exhibit P3 order. The learned Single Judge rightly found that Exhibit P5 has been passed illegally and without the least of good faith.