P.C.SREEKUMAR, OVERSEER GRADE I v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to take a decision on the question of sanction and disbursement of compensatory allowance to the petitioner, as recommended by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as evidenced by Ext.P1 as also by the…
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-31, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7788 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Overseer in the High Court service. He is entrusted with duties connected with the Electricity Supply, maintenance and generator maintenance in the High Court Establishment as well as in the residence of the Judges. The petitioner submits that even on a normal basis, he is to continue on duty beyond office hours. His responsibilities have increased after the High Court started functioning in the new building.
2. Apparently, taking note of his responsibilities, the Honourable Chief Justice had recommended that a compensatory allowance of Rs.200/- per month should be paid to the petitioner. This is evidenced by Ext.P1.
Notwithstanding the fact that compensatory allowance was paid to similarly situated employees at the rate of Rs.200/- per month with effect from 1.12.1995, as per G.O.(MS)No.75/97/Home dated 14.7.1997, the petitioner was not sanctioned the said amount. This is notwithstanding the recommendation of the Honourable W.P.(C).NO.7788/08 :: 2 :: Chief Justice referred to in Ext.P1. The compensatory allowance was increased in the case of other employees from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/-. The petitioner submitted Exts.P2, P3 and P4 representations claiming the same benefit. The petitioner refers to the fact that the committee of Judges constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice to recommend the revision of pay and allowances of employees of the High Court had also submitted a report dated 28.7.2006 recommending a compensatory allowance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month to the petitioner. But when the pay revision order in the High Court establishment staff was issued as G.O.(MS) No.230/06/Home dated 26.12.2006, no provision is seen to have been made for compensatory allowance to the Overseer in the High Court Service. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this court.
I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel who represented the second respondent. W.P.(C).NO.7788/08 :: 3 ::
The Chief Justice himself has recommended that the petitioner is entitled to compensatory allowance. This was as early as in 1999. The Committee of Judges, constituted to make recommendations in the matter of pay revision for the High Court staff, also recommended compensatory allowance to the tune of Rs.200/- per month for overseer. Apparently, this recommendation was not considered when the pay revision order dated
26.12.2006 was issued. It is not open to the government to ignore the recommendation made by the Committee of Judges, which has the approval of the Chief Justice himself. In fact, the recommendation made by the Chief Justice, in the matter of pay and allowances of the employees and staff of the High Court is normally binding on the Government, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurumurthy v. Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland {AIR 1971 SC 1850} and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India {AIR 1990 SC 334}. May be, it is open to the Government to dissent, but only after its W.P.(C).NO.7788/08 :: 4 :: views are first indicated to the 4th respondent, who shall then place it before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Definitely it is not open to the Government to keep silent about such recommendation.
Operative part
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to take a decision on the question of sanction and disbursement of compensatory allowance to the petitioner, as recommended by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as evidenced by Ext.P1 as also by the Committee of Judges constituted by the Chief Justice and contained in the report dated 28.7.2006. To enable the Government to do so, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Government. The representation submitted by the petitioner, marked as Ext.P3 in the writ petition, may be treated as a recommendation made to the Government. It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation along with the copy of the judgment and copy of the writ petition. Government shall take a decision, in the manner W.P.(C).NO.7788/08 :: 5 :: aforementioned, in the light of the recommendation made by the Honourable Chief Justice and the Committee of Judges, keeping in mind the binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the cases aforementioned. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Mar 2008. The bench was V GIRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.