A SIVANKUTTY NAIR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, at the time of filing this Original Petition, was an Office Superintendent (Higher Grade) in the Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition, he retired from service.

(2.) The petitioner became an Office Superintendent by promotion from the post of Selection Grade Typist in February 1993, by Ext.P1 order. At that time, the scale of pay of Office Superintendent was higher than that of Selection Grade Typist. Therefore, his pay in the scale of pay applicable to Office Superintendent was fixed and approved by Ext.P-2 and P-3.

(3.) In March, 1995, by Ext.P-4 order, the Government equalised the scales of pay of Selection Grade Typist and Office Superintendent, retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1992, with monetary benefits from 1.4.1995. Consequent to audit objection applying Ext.P-4 order, the pay fixation of the petitioner done as per Exts.P-2 and P-3 on 18.2.1994 was undone and recovery of alleged excess pay of Rs. 15,737 drawn by him, was sought to be recovered by Ext.P-5 memo. This was without notice to him, the petitioner alleges. Representations in this regard by Exts.P-6, P-7 and P-8 went unheeded. In fact, by Ext.P-6, the petitioner has also sought for a re-option which is allowable as per Government Order like Ext.P-9 in such circumstances. In Ext.P-8, he also pointed out the anomaly of juniors drawing more salary and sought for stepping up pay at par with juniors. However, the Government, by Exts.P-10 and P-11 declined petitioner's request.