BHASKARAN M P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired as Headmaster of a Government School on 31/05/2002. He started service as a P.D teacher since 18/11/1969. He was promoted as Headmaster on 16/09/1990. He was granted selection grade in the cadre of P.D. Teacher on 01/03/1992. Pursuant to 1992 revision of pay, the petitioner submitted option and pay was fixed. Noting that there was some mistake in the fixation of pay, the same was later revised in accordance with Ext. P4 Government Order. Alleging that on account of such revision of fixation of pay, the petitioner stood to lose money, he filed Ext. P1 representation before the Government. This Court, by Ext. P2 judgment, directed the Government to consider his representation. That resulted in Ext. P3 order of the Government, whereby the petitioner's claim was rejected. The petitioner now does not dispute the fact that the refixation of pay of the petitioner is in accordance with Ext. P4 Government Order. His grievance now is that he was promoted with effect from 16/09/1990, whereas three teachers, namely, V. Kunhiraman, P. V. Narayanan and Smt. K. C. Thamkam who became Headmasters/Headmistress only on 04/06/1998, 10/06/1998 and 04/06/1998 respectively, were drawing more pay than the petitioner, which is a clear anomaly, which requires to be remedied. According to the petitioner, when he got promotion as Headmaster eight years earlier to those teachers, whatever be the fixation of pay whether correct or not, that should not result in the petitioner drawing less pay than those teachers who got promotion far later than the petitioner. The petitioner submits that such a principle has been accepted by the Supreme Court, which has been followed by this Court in Kamala Devi v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., 2002 KHC 35 : 2002 (1) KLT 157 : ILR 2002 (1) Ker. 86. The petitioner would further submit that the principle has been incorporated in Ruling 1 to R.28A of Part I of Kerala Service Rules, 1959.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader would dispute the contention of the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, the question of stepping up of the petitioner's pay in tune with the pay of his juniors was never a question raised by the petitioner, particularly in Ext. P1 representation and as such Government never had any occasion to consider that question. Ext. P3 was only in respect of the correctness of the refixation made in accordance with Ext. P4. In so far as it is not now disputed that the petitioner's fixation of pay has been strictly in accordance with Ext. P4, the petitioner cannot now raise a different claim, is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.