High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-03-10Writ petition disposed of in terms of orders (q...

P.V. Ramachandran v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (WP(C).No.18205 of 2013(A))

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: (i) Ext P9 order is quashed; (ii) There shall be a direction to the respondents to step up the petitioner’s pay to that of his junior Preman and to re-fix his pay accordingly, with recomputation of pensionary benefits; (iii) Arrears of pay from 01.08.2009 onward, along with pension and terminal benefits, must be disbursed within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of in terms of orders (quashing Ext P9; directing stepping up of pay with arrears and pension recalculation).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. Ramachandran

Respondents

K.S.F.E. Registered Office, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20 represented by its Managing Director
The Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Registered Office, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.V. Thomas (Sr.)
• M.M. Jasmin
• Nidhi Sam Johns
• V. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Benny Thomas
• M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
• K. John Mathai

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition concerns an internal pay anomaly among Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE) executives. Petitioner P.V. Ramachandran, who retired as Chief Manager on 31 July 2013, contends that his junior, Sri P.P. Preman, drew higher pay from 1 July 2009 onwards despite Ramachandran’s senior status. Exts. P1 and P2 (dated 28 February 2011) illustrate the fixation of pay for Ramachandran and Preman, revealing persistent disparity after promotions and increments; Ramachandran’s pay trail shows him earning less than Preman even when Preman held a lower post (Manager Grade III) before promotion to Senior Manager. Ramachandran sought stepping up of pay to par with Preman, invoking the principle laid down in N.R. Kamala Devi v. KSFE (2002) to rectify pay anomalies arising from the pay revision settlements of 1988 and the 1993 agreement to rectify anomalies. Ext. P9, dated 10 June 2013, denying relief was quashed. The Court noted the anomaly persisted since 1988, and that limitation did not bar relief because the anomaly affected pension and ongoing remuneration. The judgment directs stepping up from 01 August 2009, re-fixation of pay, recalculation of pension, and payment of arrears and terminal benefits within three months, thereby remedying pay parity.”

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that pay fixation anomalies arising from the 1988 pay revision settlement and subsequent arrangements caused him to receive a lower pay than his junior Preman, despite Ramachandran’s seniority and later promotions. He sought stepping up to his junior’s pay (Preman) with arrears and pension recalculation, relying on the Kamala Devi precedent to justify stepping up and challenging Ext. P9’s denial as contrary to equitable pay fixation. The petitioner pointed to Exts. P1–P2 showing the disparities and urged relief to correct the long-standing anomaly, including pensionary consequences.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended there was no statutory provision to reopen or rectify pay anomalies created by the 1988 settlement; they asserted Ramachandran had received other benefits and that Preman’s pay fixation followed the settlement terms. They argued the anomaly arose because of different cadres and post promotions, and that the petitioner did not raise objections at the time of pay revision; they also claimed no legal basis to step up under the 1993 agreement and that the delay was a matter of concern, though not a legal bar per Bhaskaran M.P. v. State of Kerala and Tarsem Singh, cited to support limitations.”},

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
N.R.Kamala Devi v. The Kerala State Financial Enterprices Ltd.	2002(1) KLT 157	Positive	The court relied on Kamala Devi to support stepping up of pay for a senior drawing lesser pay than a junior, guiding the discretionary remedy for pay anomalies.
Bhaskaran M.P. v. State of Kerala	2009(2) KHC 679	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that limitation does not bar relief where pay anomalies affect ongoing remuneration and pensionary benefits.
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh	2009(1) KLT 101 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority regarding limitation principles in the context of financial pay relief and anomalies.

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 P.V. Ramachandran v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (WP(C).No.18205 of 2013(A)) 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **P.V.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 58 YEARS CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HASAN ARCADE, KANNUR-671002 RESIDING AT 'REVATHY', KUTTAMATH, CHERVATHUR (PO) KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 313** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.) SMT.M.M.JASMIN SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS SRI.V.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 K.S.F.E. REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 10th day of March 2020** The petitioner filed this writ petition while he was working as Chief Manager of the 1[st] respondent. He retired from service on 31.07.2013. His grievance is that his junior one Sri.P.P.Preman, has been drawing more pay than him and that his request to fix his pay on par with the junior was rejected. Petitioner commenced service as Junior Assistant under the Respondents on 31.05.1983. Details of service rendered by the petitioner in each post as well as that of Sri.P.P.Preman are as follows. |Sl.<br>No|**Name of Post**|**P.V.Ramachandran**|**P.P. Preman**| |---|---|---|---| |a|Junior Assistant|05/31/1983|08/11/1983| |b|Senior Assistant|05/09/1988|11/02/1988| |c|Special Grade Assistant|06/08/1992|05/24/1994| |d|Junior Executive|10/25/1993|05/30/1994| |E|Manager Grade-IV|12/26/1997|06/30/2000| |f|Manager Grade -III|07/01/2005|01/01/2006| |g|Senior Manager|07/01/2007|01/01/2009| |h|Chief Manager|07/01/2012|..................| 2. The petitioner had produced Exts.P1 and P2 fixation **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 3 statements in respect of the petitioner as well as that of Sri.P.P. Preman issued on 28.02.2011. Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner's pay in the post of Senior Manager was fixed at Rs.44,140/- as on 31.05.2008, on grant of additional increment on completion of 25 years; thereafter on grant of increment on 01.07.2008 at Rs. 45,505/- as on 01.07.2008, at Rs.46,870/- as on 01.07.2009, and at Rs.48,235/- as on 01.07.2010. At the same time, pay of his junior Sri.P.P.Preman who was working as a Manager Grade III, was fixed at Rs.42,775/- as on 01.08.2008, on grant of additional increment on completion of 25 years, it was fixed at Rs.44,140/- as on 11.08.2008; on promotion as Senior Manager, his pay was fixed at Rs.45,505/- as on 01.01.2009; his pay was fixed thereafter at Rs.48,235/- as on 01.08.2009, based on date of option and at Rs.49,600/- as on 01.08.2010. For the period from 01.07.2009 onwards, petitioner's junior Sri.P.P. Preman was drawing a pay of Rs.48,235/- on fixation of his pay on promotion as Senior Manager where as the petitioner was drawing Rs.46,870/- only from 01.07.2009 onwards. On 01.07.2010, the petitioner was drawing Rs.48,235/- while the junior was drawing Rs.49,600/- 3. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation on 14.01.2013 requesting stepping up of his pay **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 4 from 01.08.2008 onwards pointing out that several of his juniors including Sri. Preman were drawing more pay than him, the representation was rejected as per Ext.P9 order dated 10.06.2013 stating that there was no provision in the pay revision settlement which came into force from 01.07.1988 to rectify the pay anomalies arising while implementing the pay revision fixation. It was also stated that as per the agreement entered into between Management & Employees' Unions in 1993 to rectify the pay anomalies related to the pay revision with effect from 01.08.1992 it was decided not to reopen the anomaly cases existing as on 31.07.1992. 4. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in **N.R.Kamala Devi v. The Kerala State Financial Enterprices** **Ltd. [2002(1) KLT 157]** . In which, this Court had directed stepping up the pay of senior who was drawing lesser pay than junior. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order seeking direction to respondents to step up his pay. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit, stating that the 1[st] respondent Company has given the petitioner all other benefits admissible to him. It is stated that the Sri.P.P.Preman was receiving a basic pay of Rs.52,330/- at the time of retirement of the petitioner, whereas, the petitioner was **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 5 drawing Rs.55,175/-. Further case of the respondent is that by virtue of fixation of pay revision settlement with effect from 01.07.1988, the petitioner fell short of one increment in the pay as compared to that of Sri.P.P.PReman for the reason that the petitioner had chosen promotion as Senior Assistant with effect from 10.05.1988 and his pay was fixed in that post allowing two increments as applicable at the relevant time. It is stated that the pay scale of petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant would fall in the settlement entered prior to 01.07.1988. In the case of Sri.P.P.Preman, he was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 02.11.1988 and it was fixed in accordance with the settlement as on 01.07.1988; because of this there was a shortage of one increment in the pay of the petitioner as compared to that of Sri.P.P.Preman. Further case is that the petitioner opted for the pay revision fixation with effect from 31.05.1998 based on Ext.R1(a) settlement and also opted for the post of Senior Manager with effect from 01.07.2007, when the date of increment of the petitioner changed from May to July. 6. It is their further case that when the pay revision settlement with effect from 01.08.2007 came into force the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Premen, were holding different posts and different scale of pay. The respondents have stated that the **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 6 petitioner did not raise any grievance when there was shortage of one increment in his case since 1988 when the pay was fixed based on the then settlement and that the anomaly occurred only because the petitioner chose promotion prior to Sri.P.P.Preman. They have also stated that for the purpose of stepping up of pay, both the parties must be in same cadre but in the case, the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Preman, both were in different cadres, different pay scales, different basic pay and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim stepping up. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment Ext.P3. At the same time, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed the same and argued that the petitioner did not have any grievance regarding the anomaly and did not raise any objection even when the pay revision settlement was issued on 01.08.2007 where there was a provision for rectifying the anomalies. 8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that a comparison of Exts.P1 and P2 would show that the petitioner was drawing lesser pay than even his junior who was in a lower post of Manager Gr.III, whereas, the petitioner was a **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 7 Chief Manager. It is seen that from 01.07.2009 onwards the Junior who was only a Manager Gr.III, was drawing more pay than the petitioner who was a Senior Manager. From Ext.P7 seniority list of Managers as on 01.01.2009, it is seen that the petitioner was at serial No. 106 among Chief Manager/Senior Manager, whereas Sri.P.P.Preman was at serial No. 35 among Manager Grade III. The respondents have admitted that there was shortage of increments for the petitioner consequent to the settlement of 1988. The only reason stated for denying the benefit is that the petitioner did not raise any grievance at the time when the anomaly occurred. According to them, this anomaly occurred on 01.07.1988. 9. The petitioner cannot be expected to be aware of the fixation of pay in respect of his juniors. Though it is seen that from Ext R1(c) order that petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.1,06,943/- in July 2013, and Sri.P.P.Preman, was drawing a sum of Rs.1,00,987/-, the respondents have admitted the fact that petitioner was drawing lesser pay than his junior since 1988. They do not deny the seniority of the petitioner over Sri. Preman or the disparity in pay as evident from Ext P1 and P2. It is also relevant to note that Preman got promotion as Senior Manager only on 01.01.2009, whereas petitioner was promoted **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 8 on 01.07.2007. They also admit that there occurred a shortage of increment consequent to pay revision settlement. The only objection raised is that petitioner did not raise any objection. Such an objection will not lie on the question of fixation of pay on par with a junior because pay fixation proceedings of one employee is not within the knowledge of another. 10. There is no question of limitation also as petitioner had been drawing pay every month and now he is drawing pension every month. The refusal to step up the pay on par with his junior affects him every month. Therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of stepping up on account of the delay in approaching the respondents in the light of the judgments in **Bhaskaran M.P. v. State of Kerala [2009(2) KHC 679], Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2009(1) KLT 101 (SC)] , etc.** 11. Since the petitioner has approached this Court only after his retirement in 2013, though the anomaly is stated to have occurred in 1988, it is only proper that the anomali is rectified fixing his pay on par with his junior and arrears of pay due to petitioner is limited for the period from 01.08.2009 onwards. 12. In the result **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 9 ## (i)Ext P9 order is quashed; (ii) There shall be a direction to the respondents to step up the pay of petitioner to that of his junior Preman and to re-fix his pay based on that; recompute his pensionary benefits based on the pay thus re-fixed, sanction and authorise the payment to petitioner accordingly; (iii). There shall be a further direction to respondents to disburse the arrears of pay due to petitioner on account of the stepping up for the period from 01.08.2009 along with arrears of pension and other terminal benefits admissible to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA** Dxy **JUDGE** **WP(C).No.18205 OF 2013(A)** 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28-2-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT REGARDING FIXATION OF PAY ON PAY REVISION WITH EFFECT FROM 01-082007.** **EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28-2-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT REGARDING FIXATION OF PAY ON PAY REVISION WITH EFFECT FROM 01-082007 OF SRI.P.P.PREMAN** - **EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-10-2001 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.529/2000 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-9-2004 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.26282 OF 2004.** - **EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P5 - TRUE COPIES OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 15-2-2002.** - **EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P6 - TRUE COPIES OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 13-12-2004** - **EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.06/08/(PA) DATED 10-12008.** **EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-1-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.46576 DATED 10-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&I.R), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.**