B.P. Sreedharan, Retired Special Grade vs State of Kerala and Others

Kurian Joseph, J.—The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to restore the pay in the case of the petitioner as fixed in the orders A-101/92(1) dated 28.12.1992 dated 28.12.2002 of the Taluk Panchayat Officer, Perinthalmanna and A6-4848/93(3) dated 15.2.1994 of the Taluk Panchayat Officer, Kozhikode and in Ext.P3 and to recalculate the terminal benefits due to him based on the pay thus restored and to revise, re-fix and disburse all the terminal benefits due to the petitioner including arrears of pension, commuted value of pension and DCRG, based on such re- fixation;

(ii) Declare that the Government letters Exts.P10 and P11 to the extent those letters direct the scale of pay on sanctioning 25 years'' grade after 1992 pay revision as Rs. 1,760-3,050/- instead of Rs. 2000-3200 and directs 28A fixation with reference to lower post are illegal and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to that extent.

Learned Government Pleader, referring to the counter affidavit submits that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the fixation and that is why, he had consented to the recovery of excess pay drawn by him, in case the fixation was found to be irregular at a later stage. The writ petitioner is no more and his legal heirs are impleaded as the additional petitioners 2 to 4. In the nature of the view I propose to take in this case, I do not think that the matter should be gone into on merits since one of the contentions taken by the writ petitioner is that in several cases, the impugned fixations though not sustained, recovery was not made.

In the case of several persons, they got the pay restored, in implementation of the directions issued by this Court. One such instance is in the case of one Sri. Unnikrishnan Nambisan covered by judgment in O.P. No. 23068/98. Yet another instance is of Sri. M. Bhaskaran covered by the judgment in O.P. No. 23305/2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a few other judgments (O.P. No. 32086/01, WPC Nos.25873, 23466 and 22064 of 2003). If the benefits could be thus granted to the similarly situated persons in implementation of the directions issued by this Court, I do not find any justification in denying a similar treatment to late Sri.Sreedharan, the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring that the writ petitioner (late Sri.Sreedharan) who retired as Special Grade Secretary will also be entitled to similar treatment as given to the persons covered by the judgments referred to above. Accordingly, his pay will be restored and the withheld benefits will be disbursed to the additional petitioners 2 to 4, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In order to enable the respondents to work out the relief as above, the impugned Exts.P4, P5 and P6 are quashed.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.