AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
W.A. No. 22/2008:
The appellants were Selection Grade Lecturers in Chemistry and Physics respectively, working in the S.N. College, Cherthala. They retired from service on 31.3.2000 and 30.6.1999 respectively. The scales of pay of the teachers of Government and Private Colleges were revised by Ext. P1 Government Order dated 4.7.2000 with effect from 1.1.1996. As on 1.1.1996, the appellants were drawing the Basic Pay of Rs. 4,950/- in the pre-revised scale. On revision, their pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 15,360/-, in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturers. According to the appellants, some of their juniors were drawing higher pay than them, pursuant to the implementation of Ext. P1 order. Therefore, they claim that they are entitled to get the benefit of Note 4 under the formula for fixation of pay in the revised scale contained in Ext. P1. Note 4 reads as follows:
Note 4. - Where in the fixation of pay under clause II above, pay of a teacher, who, in the existing scale was drawing immediately before the 1st day of January 1996 more pay than another teacher junior to him in the same category, gets fixed in the revised scale at a stage lower than that of such junior, his pay shall be stepped upto the same stage in the revised scale as that of the junior.
The appellants pointed out that in the case of similarly placed persons, this Court has granted the relief as per Ext. P5. It is also submitted that many persons were granted the above benefit even though they did not approach this Court. In the above background, the Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit covered by Ext. P1 Govt. Order and the Appendix attached to it and also the benefits granted in Ext. P5 common judgment by this Hon''ble Court;
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at Rs. 15,780/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and revised pensionary benefits.
(iii) to direct the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits to the petitioners after rectifying the defect by revising and fixing their basic pay at Rs. 15,780/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and disburse all arrears of salary and revised pensionary benefits.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition noticing the delay and laches on the part of the appellants. The learned Single Judge took the view that judgment in Ext. P5 cannot be applied to appellants, as the petitioners in Ext. P5 have vigilantly pursued their rights. The appellants appealed, pointing out that, as a result of the error in the fixation of pay, their pensionary claims are also adversely affected. They pointed out that the reduction in the monthly pension arising from the wrong fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, even if they are not paid the arrears, they are entitled to have their pension revised for the future. Taking into account the said submission, the Writ Appeal was admitted.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants for some time, we noticed that the appellants have never moved any of the administrative authorities concerned to redress their grievance. They have come to this Court directly seeking the aforementioned reliefs, as if the High Court is the primary authority to consider their grievance. We notice the submission of the learned Government Pleader that Note 5 contained in Ext. P1, imposes several conditions for stepping up of pay of seniors who are drawing lesser pay than their juniors pursuant to the implementation of Ext. P1. They are matters for the concerned administrative authorities to look into. In view of the fact that the appellants have never moved any of the administrative authorities pointing out their grievance and seeking redressal of the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Therefore, even assuming the ground on which the appeal was admitted is valid, the grievance of the appellants cannot be considered. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
However, the learned Counsel for the appellants prayed that the appellants may be given liberty to move the concerned administrative authorities to redress their grievance. There is no necessity for us to give any permission. If the appellants have any right in this regard, they can always pursue that.
W.A. No. 506 of 2008:
The facts of this case are almost identical to the case of the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 22 of 2008. But, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the second appellant has preferred Ext. P6 representation before the second respondent. But, we notice that, in her representation, she has claimed stepping up of pay on par with a Selection Grade Lecturer working in the Department of Physics. The second appellant is a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry. There is no inter-se seniority between Lecturers in different Departments. So, the claim made in Ext. P6 representation is unsustainable. In the result, the judgment in W.A. No. 22 of 2008 will govern this Writ Appeal also. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.