ROY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are employees of the 2nd respondent Bank, an apex society under the Kerala Co -operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the Rules thereunder. They have filed this writ petition complaining that, though their pay and allowances have been revised with effect from 01.04.2007 onwards, the arrears payable to them have not been paid, till date. Ext.P1 has been issued by the State Government. Ext.P2 is the revised Master Scale and the Higher Grade Scale.

(2.) PURSUANT to Ext.P1, the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent has taken a decision to advise its office to work out the details of arrears for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011 on an year -wise basis and to submit the details for the purpose of taking a final decision regarding release of the arrears of salary to its employees. Thereafter, on 01.06.2012 by Ext.P4, a decision was taken to release the arrears of salary and allowances to the employees of the Bank from the year 2010 -11 only, taking into consideration the bad financial condition of the Bank. As per Ext.P5, another decision dated 21.06.2012, the benefits of the Grade Promotion sanctioned has been decided to be extended to the employees, but the same is also confined to the year 2011 -12 alone. The payment has been decided to be made in three equal monthly installments starting from June 2012. Though the employees have complained to the Government regarding the non -implementation of the pay revision, by submitting Ext.P6, no orders have been passed thereon, the petitioners complain.

(3.) ACCORDING to Adv.Sri.P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the petitioners, the Scales of Pay of the employees are fixed by the provisions of the Act. Such pay is also revised by the Government. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is bound to implement the pay revision that has been ordered and to pay the benefits thereof to the employees, in full. They cannot deny to the petitioners their rights alleging financial instability or loss. The counsel also places reliance on Rule 189 of the Rules to contend that the Scale of Pay of the different categories of posts are as shown in Appendix III to the Rules. The 2nd respondent is bound to effect the pay revision that has been ordered by Ext.P1. Therefore, the objection to implement the same is liable to be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution.