The High Court · 2025

BY ADV.SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :3: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 The petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed to the post of HST Junior on 17.09.2002. The petitioner was promoted to the post of HSST (Commerce) by transfer and the same was approved by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1. The petitioner was promoted in the pay scale of ₹55200-₹115300 in the promotion post, which came into effect from 15.07.2021. The petitioner was entitled to an increment from 01.08.2021, which should have been revised to ₹89,000/-.

2. However, the petitioner’s increment was granted only from 01.07.2022, causing postponement for almost 10 months in receiving the rightful increment. The petitioner’s promotion and the delay in the increment have caused significant hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner should have received the increment from 01.08.2021. W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :4:

3. The petitioner states that his case is similar to that of the person involved in W.P.(C) No.14753 of 2020 which is filed seeking similar relief. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of re-fixation of pay in the scale of pay of HSST (Junior) with effect from the date of promotion as provided in Government Decision No.4 under Rule 37 (b).

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the respondents filed W.A. No.1556 of 2021 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court upheld Ext.P3 judgment and stated that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of re-fixation of pay under Decision No.4 to Rule 37 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). As per the directions issued in that case, the Court had directed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of an additional increment that would have been accrued had she continued in her previous post, in addition to the proper re-fixation of pay on promotion. W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :5:

5. Even though Ext.P4 judgment was challenged by the State Government before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4420 of 2023, the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Following the direction of the Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, the Government passed Ext.P5 G.O (Rt) No.5846/2024/GEDN dated 09.09.2024 directing to grant similar relief to other similarly placed employees. Pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, the respondents granted similar relief to other similarly placed persons as per Exts.P6, P7 and P8.

6. The petitioner states that the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking extension of the benefits as provided in Ext.P5 order to the petitioner. However, no action has been taken on the petitioner’s request. This Court disposed of similar matter (WP(C) No.23518 of 2024) directing the respondent to grant fixation benefits and the date of the next increment to the W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :6: petitioner in the post of HSST as per the law laid down by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment as per Ext.P10. In the above circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction on Ext.P9 representation and non-grant of the benefit of Ext.P5 order pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. Notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

8. The petitioner submits that posting on a lower pay scale created anomalies to similarly situated Teachers and this Court considered the issue in W.P.(C) No.14753 of 2020 and this Court held that pay of the Teachers in such circumstances is liable to be fixed appropriately and the Teachers have to be assigned the date of the next increment as W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :7: they have been getting increments at the lower post. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is a similarly situated person.

9. I find that the ground raised by the petitioner is one dealt with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14753 of 2020 and W.A.No.1556 of 2021. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 2nd respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P9 in the light of Exts.P4 and P5 and takes appropriate decision thereon within a period of four months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE W.P.(C)No.13903 of 2025 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13903/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED NO. 18.09.2023 ACD.B4/1046/HSE/2002 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAY REVISION FIXATION DATED NIL A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14753/2020 DATED 11.11.2020 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA 1556/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 13.12.2021 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (RT) NO. 5846/2024/GEDN DATED 09.09.2024 A NO.8063/2024/GEDN DATED 14.11.2024 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) A NO.8052/2024/GEDN DATED 13.11.2024 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) A NO.8037/2023/GEDN DATED 12.11.2024 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2024 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 23518/2024 DATED 30.01.2025