AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J
The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme under the 9th Pay Revision Commission granted to the employees of Kerala Government. The petitioner has been working under the 2nd respondent-Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA) as Assistant Engineer since 1998. The petitioner was granted promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (HG) as per Ext.P2 order dated 12.10.2009.
The petitioner states that the Government of Kerala accepted and implemented Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of the 9th Pay Revision Commission. The Scheme provided compensatory relief to the employees who could not secure adequate number of promotions in their career. The petitioner would submit that directly recruited employees in the post of Assistant Engineer are entitled for the post of Executive Engineer (Non cadre) on completion of 15 years of regular service as per Ext.P3 Pay Revision Commission recommendations.
The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking to grant her the benefit of CAS. The 2nd respondent took up the matter with the Government. The 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department refused to accept the proposal for CAS for the employees of TRIDA. In Ext.P6 letter, the 1st respondent stated that there are only eight posts of Engineers and therefore CAS cannot be implemented in TRIDA. Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P6, was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P8.
The petitioner states that TRIDA is a small organisation working on its own fund. The petitioner joined services under the 2nd respondent in the year 1998. The petitioner was governed by the Kerala Engineering Services Rules, 1985 applicable to Government Servants. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2009 under the same Rules.
Special Rules for the Development Authorities came into force only in the year 2016. As the petitioner was governed by the Kerala Engineering Services Rules, 1985 till 2016, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of CAS at least till the year 2016. The petitioner became eligible for CAS benefit in the year 2013. The petitioner should have been given non-cadre promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the pay scale on ₹36140-49740. However, the petitioner was given only the intermediate pay scale of ₹24040-38840. The placement of the petitioner in the scale of ₹24040-38840 is erroneous. The respondents are therefore compellable to grant the petitioner the scale of ₹36140-49740, urged the counsel for the petitioner.
The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority is a Body constituted under Section 61(1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. The pay and allowances of the authority staff is met from own fund. The Executive Committee meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 21.12.2015 has decided to implement CAS in TRIDA with prior approval of the Government. However, the Government has rejected permission on the ground stated in Ext.P6 order.
The 1st respondent-State of Kerala resisted the writ petition. The 1st respondent stated that the benefit of CAS is granted to employees in Government Department having more qualified officers where chances of promotion are very less. The benefit like CAS granted through Pay Revision Order is applicable to the employees in State service. The TRIDA is only a Self Financing Body under the Government of Kerala. The Government of Kerala has not issued any Order extending benefits like CAS to the employees under the 2nd respondent.
The 1st respondent pointed out that as per Government Order dated 06.12.2011, there are posts of four Assistant Engineers, three Assistant Executive Engineer and one Executive Engineer in TRIDA. The Career Advancement Scheme cannot be granted to an institution like TRIDA having only eight posts.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner seeks the benefit of CAS recommended by the 9th Pay Revision Commission of the year 2010. The Pay Revision Commission is appointed by the Government of Kerala for making recommendations as regards revision of service benefits to the Government servants. Recommendation of the Pay Revision Commission will not ipso facto apply to TRIDA. The TRIDA is a statutory Body and is distinct from Government Departments.
The argument of the petitioner is that Special Rules for Development Authorities like the 2nd respondent came into force only in the year 2016 and the petitioner was governed by the Kerala Engineering Service Rules, 1985 till then. It is to be noted that any statutory or other authority may adopt the Rules applicable to Government servants to govern their own employees. Such adoption will not make employees of the 2nd respondent government servants. The mere fact that the employees like the petitioner are governed by rules applicable to the the government servants adopted by the TRIDA, will not make them eligible to the service benefits available to the government servants.
It is true that the 2nd respondent has decided to implement CAS in TRIDA with the prior approval of the Government. The Government has rejected the proposal. Ext.P6 order of the Government would show that the Government has specifically declined extension of the benefit of CAS to the employees of the TRIDA.
The Government has taken a stand that since the number of employees are a few in the TRIDA, benefit of CAS need not be extended to them. Extension of CAS benefits to the employees of TRIDA would give rise to similar demands from other statutory authorities, in whose case grant of such benefits will not be viable.
As the extension of the benefits of Pay Commission recommendations to statutory authorities like TRIDA is a policy matter falling within the ambit of the Executive, it will not be proper for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.