JOSE JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O. P. 5702/95 was appointed as pharmacist Grade II on provisional basis under R. 9 (a) (i) of the K. S. & s. S. R. during the period from 30. 3. 87 to 23. 3. 88. 12. 7. 88 to 6. 7. 89 and 19. 9. 89 to 18. 8. 90. THErefore, he got regular appointment in the same category of pharmacist Grade II in the same scale of pay with effect from 1. 1. 91. In terms of Government Decision No. 2 under R. 33 Part I K. S. R. governing grant of increment, the petitioner was granted annual increments in the scale of pay of the post taking into account the aforesaid three spells of provisional service. Later, that fixation was undone by Ext. P2. THE period of temporary appointment from 30. 3. 87 to 23. 3. 88 is taken out of that and is excluded for the purpose of granting increment and a refixation is effected as per Ext. P2, resulting in drop in emoluments. Thus, the petitioner challenges Ext. P2. THE factum of having three spells of provisional service is admitted by the respondents. It is also admitted that the said three spells of provisional service were in the same category as Pharmacist Grade II to which the petitioner got regular appointment with effect from 1. 1. 91.

(2.) THE petitioner in O. P. 6844/97 is a Staff Nurse, She had to her credit temporary service under R. 9 (a) (i) from 4. 1. 88 to 14. 8. 92. This was followed by regular appointment on 15. 8. 92. In her case also, her pay was fixed granting increment reckoning the spell of aforesaid provisional appointment, applying Government Decision No. 2 under R. 33 Part I K. S. R. Ext. P3 is that order. In Ext. P4, the entire period of provisional service is excluded and her pay is fixed in the revised scale of pay applicable to Staff nurse as on 15. 8. 92. THE petitioner challenges Ext. P4 order.

(3.) IT is contended by the Government Pleader that in terms of R. 9 (a) (i), the provisional appointees shall be paid only the minimum pay in the time scale applicable to the respective category. So, even at the time of regular appointment, such persons were receiving minimum of the basic pay. In such circumstances, they cannot count the provisional service to their credit for the purpose of increment. IT is also contended that the provisional services to the credit of the petitioners were not regularised at any point of time. So long as such service is not regularised, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Government Decision No. 2.