High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-03Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent; E...

K.S. Sarath Chandran Sub Judge, on deputation as Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala and High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:W.P. (C) No. 2605 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2023-02-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. Consequential orders shall be passed, and eligible amounts disbursed to the petitioner within three months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext. P13’s denial of retrospective telephone reimbursement is quashed.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent; Ext. P13 quashed; consequential orders to disburse eligible telephone reimbursements within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S. Sarath Chandran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
High Court of Kerala represented by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
• Sri S.A. Anand
• Sri K.A. Balan
• Sri Peter Jose Christo
• Smt. N. Santha

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Aravind V. Mathew
• Adv. Elvin Peter P.J.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Exts. P12 and P13, orders of the Government denying retrospective reimbursement of telephone charges and denial of a motor car loan facility, though the petitioner’s service benefits were revised under the Padmanabhan/Shetty commission framework. The petitioner, who was a Subordinate Judge on deputation as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, later retired as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam. The core dispute is whether the government should grant retrospective relief from 1-11-1999 for reimbursement of telephone charges, following the Shetty Commission recommendations that enhanced judicial officers’ amenities. The government implemented many benefits with retrospective effect from 1-11-1999 or earlier, while Ext. P13 denied retrospective telephone reimbursement, citing Ext. P8. The court scrutinizes the sequence of government orders implementing the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, the All India Judges Association line of authority, and the need to keep judicial officers adequately resourced to discharge duties. The court ultimately finds Ext. P13 unsustainable, noting the All India Judges Association opinions stressing service conditions essential to judicial duties, and directs the government to disburse eligible telephone reimbursements expeditiously within three months. The writ petition is allowed to that extent, with consequential orders to follow.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judges should be kept above their essential wants and maintained with service conditions necessary for proper discharge of judicial duties (All India Judges Association Case-II, supra).
All India Judges Association v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 2002 (4) SCC 247 – pay scales and allowances to be implemented as recommended by Shetty Commission, with certain benefits retrospective to 1-1-1996/1-7-1996 and other allowances from 1-11-1999.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought retrospective grant of telephone facility with STD from 1-11-1999, aligning with Shetty Commission recommendations that various judicial officer amenities be implemented with retrospective effect, consistent with other benefits granted in the same period. Ext. P13’s denial was challenged as inconsistent with government practice and Supreme Court guidance (All India Judges Association decisions). The petitioner contended that the telephone reimbursement is a service condition essential for proper discharge of duties and should be payable retroactively; retirement did not extinguish the entitlement where benefits have already been recognized in other forms and states in similar fashion.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Ext. P13 denying retrospective reimbursement is justified, with Ext. P8 showing partial implementation and lack of stated reason for retroactivity denial. They claimed the government’s phased implementation of Shetty Commission recommendations and separate government orders (Exts. P6, P8, P9, etc.) justify delayed or prospective grant of certain benefits. They cited the need to maintain budgetary discipline and the absence of a specific order granting retrospective telephone reimbursement, while acknowledging that many other amenities had already been granted.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
All India Judges Association v. Union of India and Ors.	2002 (4) SCC 247	Positive	Cited to support retrospective implementation of Shetty Commission recommendations; clarifies pay scales and monetary benefits timing, and justifies treating certain allowances as retroactive.
All India Judges' Association Case-II, (supra)	Case-II (supra)	Positive	Used to underline the principle that judges’ essential wants and service conditions must be met for proper discharge of duties; justifies inclusion of telephone facility as a service condition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.S. Sarath Chandran Sub Judge, on deputation as Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala and High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2605 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER/S:** K.S.SARATH CHANDRAN SUB JUDGE, ON DEPUTATION AS DEPUTY REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL), KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035. BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001. 2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682031. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI,ARAVIND V. MATHEW FOR R2 ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** # **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ** **............................................................ W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** .................................................................. ## Dated this the 3rd February, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was a Subordinate Judge in the Kerala Judicial Service and was on deputation as Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram at the time of filing of the Writ Petition. It is now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has since retired on 31-7-2022 as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam. He had filed the above writ petition challenging Exts. P12 and P13, orders passed by the Government rejecting his application made in the year 2010 for disbursement of loan for purchase of a motor car as also the nonsanctioning of the telephone facility with retrospective effect from 1-111999. 2. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has retired, the claim for disbursement of loan for purchase of a motor car :3: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** does not survive for consideration and the only issue to be considered is the non-sanctioning of the telephone facility with restrospective effect from 1-11-1999. 3. The Government of Kerala, in implementation of the first National Judicial Pay Commission recommendation and the report of Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retired) appointed as one man Commission by the Supreme Court to make recommendations for revising the pay scales and other service benefits of the judicial officers in the country, and by orders dated 4-5-2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby all the State Governments and Union Territories were directed to issue orders implementing the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Commission. The State of kerala had decided to implement the same in toto and by Ext. P1 order, the pay scales and other service benefits were revised with effect from 1-1-2006. 4. Petitioner claimed based on Ext. P1 for reimbursement of the telephone charges by judicial officers at their residences, which was sanctioned as per Ext. P8 Government Order dated 30-1-2006 with prospective effect. The claim of the petitioner to grant retrospective effect from 1-11-1999 accordingly was rejected by Ext. P13 order citing Ext. P8 Government Order. The State of Kerala had filed a counter affidavit justifying rejection by Ext. P13. :4: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** 5. The High Court of Kerala, 2nd respondent, filed a statement that states that the benefits granted by Shetty Commission to the Judicial Officers were sanctioned by the Government in a phased manner by separate Government orders, and most of the amenities like transfer grant, leave travel concession, robe allowance, medical facility, reimbursement of 50% of electricity and water charges and Sumptuary allowance were sanctioned with effect from 1-11-1999 as per Government Order dated 30-08-2006 and 3-4-2007. Though the provision for reimbursement of telephone charges is also one recommended by the Shetty Commission, and while most of the benefits have been granted with effect from 1-11-1999, Government has not even cited any reason for not giving retrospect effect to the benefit of telephone charges and it is only in the fitness of things that this benefit is also given retrospective effect from 1-11-1999, in tune with the other benefits. 6. I have heard Sri. S.P. Aravindaksha Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Aravind P.Mathew, learned Government Pleader and Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned counsel for the High Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, Exts. P13 order refusing to grant the reimbursement of telephone charges cannot be sustained. The Shetty Commission Report was dated 11-11-1999 and had to be implemented with effect from 1-11- :5: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** 1999. Admittedly, most of the recommendations were implemented by the first respondent with effect from 1-11-1999 itself. 8. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in **All India Judges Association v. Union of India and Ors. [2002 (4)** **SCC 247],** made it clear that the pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission were to be brought in force with effect from 1-11996, and monetary benefits were to be payable with effect from 1-71996. Other allowances recommended were to be given effect from 1- 11-1999 itself. It is also seen that the first respondent has in fact accepted the report in toto and that of the other States granted telephone facilities as provided in the Shetty Commission Report with effect from 1999 itself. The said facility must be seen as a service condition necessary for a proper discharge of judicial duties. It is pertinent to note as highlighted by the Supreme Court in **All India Judges' Association Case-II, (supra),** the need to keep judges above their essential wants, considering the distinct nature of Judges' duties, society's expectations, the lifestyle of the Judge and the occupation hazards to which he is exposed. There is no reason forthcoming from the first respondent as to why the said benefit was not granted with effect from 1-11-1999. 9. The recommendations of the Commission were that every court must be provided with a telephone with an STD facility and that :6: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** every judicial officer must be provided with a telephone at his residence with an STD facility except for Civil Judge (Sr. Div. ) and Civil Judge (Jr. Div.). Kerala is one of the first States to implement the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission in toto. As the petitioner has been agitating this issue for so long and for the reasons mentioned above, I hold that the rejection of the request of the petitioner by Ext. P13 is liable to be quashed, and I do so. Consequential orders in this regard shall be passed, and eligible amounts disbursed to the petitioner by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. **Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** ani/ /true copy/ :7: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER EXTS: EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O. MS NO. 179/2010/HOME DATED 5-08-2010 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2212-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY ) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3-1146/2010 DATED 27-01-2011 OF THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) EXT. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3-1146/2011 DATED 21-06-2011 OF THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) EXT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3 – 1146/2011 DATED 14-10-2011 OF THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY). EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO. 106/2010 HOME DATED 7-5-2010 EXT. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3-1146/2011 DATED 3-01-2012 OF THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) EXT. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. MS NO. 18/06/HOME DATED 30-01-2006 EXT. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. MS 61/2007/HOME DATED 24-03-2007 EXT. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1-10-2011 SUBMITTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA :8: ## **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013** JUDICIAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-052012 IN W.P.C. NO. 11752/2012-R OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT. P12: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 50657/C3/2022/HOME DATED 19-11-2012 EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF G.O. 9RT) NO. 2688/12/HOME DATED 11-09-2012 EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF G.O.9MS) 240/2012/HOME DATED 12-09-2012 RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R1 (a): A true copy of the G.O. MS No. 179/2010/home dated 5-08-2010 Ext. R1 (b): A true copy of the G.O. (MS)No. 42/2007/Home dated 9-3-2007 Ext. R1(c): True copy of the g.O. (Rt) No. 2688/12/Home dated 11-09-2012 Ext. R1(d): True copy of the G.O. (P) No. 56/2002/Fin dated 1601-2002 Ext. R1 (e):True copy of the G.O. Ms No. 18/06/Home dated 3001-2006 Ext. R1 (f) :True copy of the G.O. Ms No. 240/12/Home dated 12-09-2012 :9: **W.P. (C ) No. 2605 of 2013**