Jose George vs The 9th Pay Revision Commission Room

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The Government of Kerala, as per G.O.(MS) No. 81/2010/Fin. dated 20.2.2010, constituted a Pay Revision Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice R. Rajendra Babu (Retired) with Dr. Mohanan Pillai (Centre for Development Studies) and Advocate P. Venugopalan Nair as Members to make recommendation on revising the Pay and allowances and other benefits of the State Government employees including teaching and non-teaching staff of aided educational institutions, local bodies etc. The term of the Pay Revision Commission is six months.

The Commission issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25.3.2010 inviting suggestions from Employees Organizations, Associations, Heads of Departments, individuals etc. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner and thirteen others filed Ext.P2 representation/suggestion to the Commission.

The main relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Commission to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Another prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to redress the grievances highlighted by the petitioner and others in Ext.P2 representation/suggestion.

The function of the Commission is not to dispose of individual cases or decide the rights and liabilities of parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Commission received more than 2000 representations from individuals and more than 500 representations from various Service Organizations. The counsel submitted that it would be practically impossible for the Commission to hear all those persons before submitting the report.

It is for the Commission to decide whether any particular individual or Service Organization or group of persons should be heard or not. The petitioner has no vested right to get an opportunity for personal hearing before the Commission. Ext.P1 notification makes the position clear that the Commission had invited the views and suggestions from the Employees Organizations, Associations, Heads of Departments and individuals. I am of the view that the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, in these circumstances. As far as the second relief is concerned, a writ will not lie commanding the respondent to redress the grievances highlighted by the petitioner and others in Ext.P2 representation.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.