C.N. PREMBHASIM Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition, when he was working as a Plumbing Inspector in the Electrical and Water Section of the Guruvayoor Devaswom.

(2.) The petitioner commenced his service as a Plumber in the Guruvayoor Devaswom on 6.8.1985. Higher grade was granted to him on completion of 10 years and 18 years respectively. The post of Plumbing Inspector was created in Guruvayoor Devaswom as per Ext.P-1 resolution. The qualification, scale of pay etc. of the post was fixed as in the case of the post of Plumber in the Government service. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Plumbing Inspector as per Ext.P-2 order on 22.08.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 4,000-6,090/-.

(3.) Pointing out the higher grade granted to one Mr. Prakasan, who was working as Plumbing Inspector in Thrissur Municipal Corporation under the Municipal Common Service, petitioner claimed that he was also entitled to 23 years higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 11,070-18,480/-, relying on the judgment Ext.P-4 and Ext.P-5 order issued by the Director of Municipalities thereafter on 2.5.2009. As per Ext.P-6 letter, the Senior Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Guruvayur Devaswom Audit informed the Administrator of the Devaswom that the petitioner can be granted the scale of pay of Rs. 7,990-12,930 and Rs. 18,900-24,040 in the respective pay revision orders of 2004 and 2009 and the 27 years higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 14,620-25,280 with effect from 18.11.2012. Petitioner's request for 23 year higher grade, on par with Sri. Prakasan, in the scale of pay of Rs. 11,070-18,480, was rejected as per Ext.P-8 order, by the Senior Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, saying that the said scale of pay was not admissible as per Government orders. In Ext. P-8 letter it was also stated that the benefit of fixation granted to petitioner under Rule 28A of Part I KSR, while fixing his pay on his promotion as Plumbing Inspector, after giving him 18 years of higher grade, was not correct, and that it was to be fixed under rule 30 of part I KSR. Even though the petitioner submitted another representation, the 1st respondent Devaswom rejected his request as per Ext.P-12 order dated 7.12.2015 and informed him that his pay was re-fixed and recovery of excess pay drawn by him for the period from 22.8.2005 to 1.12.2008 was already ordered.