HUSSAIN Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these Original Petitions are employees of the Kerala Water Authority. They were working in various posts. All of them joined as provisional hands. All these provisional hands sought regularisation and there were series of litigations and the matter went upto Supreme Court and in the decision reported in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority ( 1990 (2) KLT 673 ) the Supreme Court directed regularisation of some of the provisional employees who have put in substantial period of service. These employees were ordered to be regularised with effect from 19.9.90. In the Water Authority, there was revision of the scale of pay of the employees with effect from 1.7.83, 1.7.88 and 1.3.1992. The provisional employees were being given increments on completion of one year of service and as and when scales of pay were revised they were given benefits of such revision. When the regularisation was effected with effect from 19.9.90, their basic pay was fixed at a stage in the revised scale giving due consideration to the increments already acquired by them and these employees were continued to be given increments till the revised pay scales came into force on 1.3.92. The order relating to revision of pay scales with effect from 1.3.92 was passed on 24.4.95. Then a question arose whether these employees of the Water Authority were entitled to get fixation in the revised scale by tacking all the increments they have already acquired while they were working as provisional hands. A doubt arose because of the Government Decision No. 2 under R.33 of Part I K.S.R. The decision is to the following effect:

(2.) The petitioner in these Original Petitions contend that the view taken by the Government in the clarification issued on 25.8.94 is not correct. As per Government Decision No. 2 issued under R.33 of Part I KSR two conditions are mentioned for treating the provisional service as officiating service for the purpose of granting increments. One condition is that the qualification and method of appointment should be same. All these petitioners were originally appointed as provisional hands and they were later regularised and there was no change of qualification and method of appointment as regards these petitioners. The other condition is that the posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay.

(3.) As regards the petitioners, there was no change of pay scales. For example, in the case of Third Grade Overseers, prior to 1.7.1983 the scale of pay was Rs. 330-515 and it was revised to Rs. 640-1000 with effect from 1.7.83. Later it was revised to Rs. 825-1290 with effect from 1.7.88 and thereafter with effect from 1.3.92 the scale of pay was revised to Rs. 970-1575. There was no change in the pattern of the scale of pay. By the revision of pay scales it cannot be said that the identity of the scale of pay was lost. If the interpretation given in the clarification is accepted, it will lead to a situation where no regularised hands would be able to enjoy the benefits of increments accrued to them while working as provisional hands, as there would be quinquennial pay revision for employees. Only the effect of pay revision was given and that is quite normal under any service. All the Overseers were on identical pay scales and so long as there was no change in their pay scales they are entitled to the benefit of the Government. Decision No. 2 and their entire provisional service should be treated as officiating services and they are entitled to treat this period for the purpose of increments.