Babu K.V. v. State of Kerala & others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, ``` ``` 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 4128 OF 2017`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` BABU K.V. AGED 48 YEARS LABOUR OFFICER, KERALA AGRICUTLURAL UNIVERSITY HEAD QUARTERS, VALLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O- 680 656 BY ADV SRI.S.M.PRASANTH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001` - `2 THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKARA, THRISSUR- 680 656` - `3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKARA, THRISSU- 680 656` - `ADDL.4 K.SREEKUMAR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GRADE-II, DIRECTORATE OF EXTENSION, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN-680651.` ``` ADDL.5C.P.RAPHI RECRUITMENT OFFICER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680656. ADDL.6E.K.DALIKA ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER (DD&A), KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680656. ``` ## **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..2.. ``` ADDL.7P.V.AMMINIKUTTY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ADMN-1), KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680656. ``` ``` ADDL.8A. RAJESWARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ADMN-II), KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680656. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.05.2017 IN IA NO.7523/2017) BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEAR ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..3.. ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be working as Labour Officer in the services of the 2[nd] respondent – ‘Kerala Agricultural University’ (‘University’ for short), impugns Ext.P4 order of the Registrar of the Pay Revision Commission Section of the University, whereby, the Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/Administrative Officer (Grade II) has been granted a higher scale of pay with effect from 01.07.2009, while denying the same to Labour Officers; as also Ext.P6 Order of the Government of Kerala, rejecting his plea for revision of the said pay scale. 2. Sri.S.M.Prasanth – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client, in his position as a Labour Officer, was always equated in the pay scale with that of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer (Grade II); and that, this has been so pointed out by him in Ext.P4 representation. He then showed me that, however, in the year 2013, Government brought out an order dated 21.11.2013, modifying the pay scale of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..4.. Administrative Officer (Grade II) to a higher level, but denying the same to his client and other Labour Officers. He argued that this is peremptorily illegal because, until the year 2009, all these posts carried the same scale of pay. He relied upon a learned Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Union of India v. Jacob Paul**_ [2022 (6) KLT 136], to argue that such a discrimination is illegal and unlawful. On such edifice, he then contented Ext.P6 order of the Government is also unlawful, since it has declined his client’s leave for revision of the pay scale, merely saying that no parity can be claimed by him as regards the post and that of Labour Officer _vis-a-vis_ that of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer (Grade II). 3. Sri.S.M.Prasanth, thereafter, submitted that, even though his client’s predecessor had been given a further promotion as Labour Officer (Higher Grade), as evident from Ext.P9, said benefit has been denied to him, but without assigning any reason. He, thus, additionally prayed that University be directed to grant his client said promotion also, without any further delay. **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..5.. 4. In response, Sri.Robson Paul – learned Standing Counsel for the University, relied upon the judgment of this Court in _**Bhaskaran v. Kerala Agricultural University and others**_ [W.P.(C)No.13040 of 2008], which had been filed by an earlier incumbent in the post of Labour Officer, pointing out that a learned Judge of this Court has affirmately found “ _that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy him that, as per the Recruitment Rules, the post of Labour Officer is a feeder category for the promotion posts. Admittedly, the Labour Officer is an isolated post, which is not in the administrative cadre, which the other posts are._ ” (sic). He then added that this judgment has been confirmed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.274/2013. 5. Sri.Robson Paul argued that, therefore, when the post of Labour Officer is an isolated one, it cannot be compared to any other, including Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer (Grade II); and hence, that Ext.P6 order of the Government is without error, particularly when the petitioner does not have a case that his eligible Time Bound Higher Grade promotions had **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..6.. been denied to him. He concluded his submissions saying that, since the Special Rules do not contain the post of Labour Officer (Higher Grade), petitioner cannot seek promotion to the same and explained that, in the case of Sri.P.K.Mohanan whose name is mentioned in Ext.P9, he was given the said benefit, since it was done prior to the Pay Revision, whereby, such a post became unavailable . 6. The learned Government Pleader – Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Robson Paul, supplementing the same saying that petitioner’s requests are experimental in nature, since it is not supported by any Rules or Regulations. 7. I have examined the afore rival contentions, as also the judgment cited by Sri.Robson Paul, namely **Bhaskaran** ( _supra_ ). It is without doubt that a learned Judge of this Court has found that the post of Labour Officer is an “isolated” one and that, it is not a feeder category for any other promotion post, including Deputy Registrar or Joint Registrar. Obviously, therefore, if the petitioner requires any relief, the Special Rules of the University will have to be amended; but this is not one **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..7.. which this Court can either direct or command. 8. As regards the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Labour Officer (Higher Grade) is concerned, since it is conceded that such a post is not borne on any cadre in the Special Rules, I fail to understand how the petitioner can seek it, solely on the ground that another person - a certain Sri.P.K.Mohanan, had been granted the said benefit in the year 2012. At the best, he can only argue that said promotion was illegal, but cannot rely upon to claim a further illegal promotion for himself. 9. Coming to the question of equation of the pay scale of the post of Labour Officer with that of Assistant Registrar/ Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer (Grade II), there is some force in the submissions of the petitioner because, as pointed out by him in Ext.P4, these posts, _prima facie,_ appear to have had the same scale of pay until the year 2009, when the pay revision of that year had been implemented. However, Government is stated to have modified the scale of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer(Grade **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..8.. II) through order dated 21.11.2013, giving retrospective effect from 01.07.2009, thus enhancing the pay scale of the said post. However, this benefit had been denied to Labour Officers, but without assigning any reason. 10. The Government, thereafter, has explained their stand through Ext.P6, wherein they solely say that no parity can be claimed by the petitioner because, same is applicable only to the case of categories of posts borne on the same cadre which are interchangable as per the Special Rules concerned. 11. On the touchstone of the principles of law involved, certainly, Ext.P6 cannot be faulted, but the Government ought to have explained why they decided not to grant the benefit of the enhanced scale of pay to the Labour Officers, particularly, when its pay scale had been earlier equated with that of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ Administrative Officer(Grade II) from the year 1983 till the year 2009. In fact, as correctly argued by Sri.S.M.Prasanth, if the revision of the pay scale of the posts other than that of Labour Officer was enhanced by the Government in 2013, but denying **WPC.No.4128 /2017** **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** it to the said post, obviously, they had an obligation to inform the petitioner why it was done in Ext.P6. Since this order is silent on this issue, I am certain that the petitioner’s request in that regard will require to be reconsidered by the Government, though I do not propose to, at the moment, to affirmatively declare that its contents to be illegal or unlawful. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, only to the extent of directing the competent Authority of the Government to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the pay scale in tune with its recommendations dated 21.11.2013, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, clarify that I have not spoken conclusively in favour of the petitioner in any manner and that, it is up to the Government to decide whether the post of Labour Officer also ought to have been given the benefit as was granted to Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptroller/Recruitment Officer/ **WPC.No.4128 /2017** **==> picture [26 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Administrative Officer (Grade II), based on all relevant and _germane_ aspects, including that these posts enjoyed the same scale of pay until the year 2013 – the modifications having been brought in only in that year, but to operate retrospectively from 01.07.2009. **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ACR **WPC.No.4128 /2017** ..11.. ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4128/2017`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/A3/30137/12 DATED 26-03-2015` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFICE ORDER NO.1/2013 DATED 16-01-2013` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS) NO.571/2013/(180)FIN DATED 21/11/2013` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-01-2015` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-032014` - `EXHIBITP6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-052014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4-8-2014` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-062014` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/A3/8743/11 DATED 26-03-2011` - `EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/A3/31320/12 DATED 01-12-2012` - `EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2018 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.7.2014` - `EXHIBIT P12A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.7.2014` - `EXHIBIT P12B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.7.2014` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a)TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA/A3/30137/12 DATED 13.6.2013 EXHIBIT R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION OF SCALE OF PAY AND PROMOTION TO THE CATEGORIES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS ETC., ISSUED FROM THE FINANCE WING DATED 06.01.2001 ```