STATE OF KERALA Vs. CHANDRAVATHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader quite in extenso. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, who were the writ petitioners. The short issue that arises for decision is as to whether the learned single Judge has erred in law in interpreting and applying R. 28A of Part I KSR. That Rule, to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows:

(2.) The eligibility for a refixation of pay occurs whenever there is a change of pay in the lower time-scale is part of R. 28A. Therefore, that benefit will accrue if an officer holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying a higher time-scale of pay. This position is so, notwithstanding whether such appointment is by promotion or otherwise. In such an event, his initial pay in the higher time-scale of pay shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at in the lower time-scale of pay by increasing the actual pay drawn by him in the lower time-scale by one increment. The refixation of pay whenever there is a change of pay in the lower time-scale will operate accordingly. If that were so, R. 28A is one which opens with a non-obstante clause and the rigour of that Rule and the provisions therein run notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Kerala Service Rules. That provision cannot be reduced by making cross references to other Rules. The Government's decision clearly showed that the private respondents herein moved to a higher time scale of pay by appointment. As already noted, R. 28A is a provision that stands by itself to the exclusion of everything else contained in the K.S.R. That being so, the objections raised by the Accountant General's office to the Government's decision making reference to other provisions of the K.S.R. cannot be sustained. Hence, the reasoning of the learned single Judge and the impugned common judgment rendered in the Writ Petitions do not call for any interference. These appeals, therefore, fail.