High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed; no interference wi...

Secretary to Government Local Self Government Department (LSGD) v. Rosily Antony and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No.321/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2023-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
The original petition is dismissed. The Tribunal’s order directing pay protection under Rule 28A Part I KSR is sustained, and the Government order revising pay in 2014 and taking effect from 01/07/2014 is noted. No interference with the Tribunal order is warranted in light of O.P.(KAT).No.219/2022.
Final Disposition
Original petition dismissed; no interference with Tribunal order; petitioners not granted relief despite Government’s 2014 pay revision interpretation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The Secretary to Government Local Self Government Department (LSGD)
  • The Principal Secretary to Government Finance Department
  • The Director Urban Affairs Department

Respondents

  • Rosily Antony
  • Rekha P
  • The Secretary Chalakudy Municipality
  • The Secretary Municipal Corporation Office, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • A.J. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Murali Pallath
  • • Bindu Sreedhar
  • • Sheejo Chacko
  • • Sheenamol Varghese (K/196/2015)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This OP(KAT) No. 321/2022 challenges a Kerala Administrative Tribunal order in O.P.(KAT) No.1205/2019 directing pay protection under Rule 28A Part I of the Kerala Service Rules for respondents who had prior service in Municipal Common Service before joining municipal bodies. The Tribunal held that the respondents are entitled to pay protection and that the Government is bound to pass necessary orders and release the pay difference within three months (Ext. P6). The State Government sought to challenge this order on the ground that Municipal Common Service and Government Service are distinct services, hence prior Government service cannot be reckoned for pay fixation. The judgment cites Santosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats (2013) 2 KLT 548, noting that Panchayat/Municipal Common Service employees are Government servants, and that under Rule 28A Part I KSR, government servants are entitled to pay protection. The Government issued G.O.(MS).No.104/2023(121)/Fin dated 3/7/2023 revising pay and allowances and clarifying that prior Government service would be reckoned for service weightage in Municipal Common Service in the 2014 Pay Revision. The Court relies on O.P.(KAT).No.219/2022 and, finding no need to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, dismisses the petition, holding the effect from 01/07/2014. The decision closes the matter without modification to the tribunal order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 28A Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR)G.O.(MS).No.104/2023(121)/Fin dated 03/07/2023G.O.(P).No.07/2016/Fin dated 20.10.2016Note below Rule 6 in the Rules for fixation of pay in the Revised Scales of Pay (Annexure II) in the G.O.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Panchayat/Municipal Common Service employees are Government servants (Santosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats, 2013 (2) KLT 548)
  • Pay protection under Rule 28A (Part I KSR)
  • Weightage for prior service for pay fixation in Municipal Common Service (as interpreted in the 2014 Pay Revision)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned Government Pleader submitted that Municipal Common Service and Government Service do not fall under the same service, and therefore the petitioners before KAT are not entitled to fixation of pay.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that pay protection under Rule 28A Part I KSR applies; prior regular Government service should be reckoned for service weightage in Municipal Common Service, supported by Santosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats; the Tribunal’s order should be upheld.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Santosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats2013 (2) KLT 548PositiveCourt held Panchayat/Municipal Common Service employees are Government servants, supporting pay protection under Rule 28A.
O.P.(KAT) No.219/2022O.P.(KAT) No.219/2022PositiveCo-ordinate bench upheld a similar Tribunal order; used as authority for no interference.
2019 (3) KHC 524 (DB)2019 (3) KHC 524 (DB)Mentioned OnlyReferenced in Annexure A22 but not central to ratio in main judgment.

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 Secretary to Government Local Self Government Department (LSGD) v. Rosily Antony and others 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` OP(KAT) NO.321 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER OA (EKM) 1205/2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT (LSGD), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `3 THE DIRECTOR URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 BY ADV SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J. VARGHESE` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:2:- ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1ROSILY ANTONY W/O. C.J. BIJU, CLERK/BILL COLLECTOR, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307 RESIDING AT CHERUTHALA HOUSE, OPPOSITE AQUINAS COLLEGE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682010 2REKHA P W/O. KRISHNA KUMAR, CLERK/BILL COLLECTOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001 RESIDING AT KOTTARATH HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306 3THE SECRETARY CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307 4THE SECRETARY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. MURALI PALLATH BINDU SREEDHAR SHEEJO CHACKO SHEENAMOL VARGHESE(K/196/2015) ``` ``` THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:3:- ``` J U D G M E N T ``` ``` A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. ``` ``` The short issue in this matter is whether prior service of the respondent with the Government before joining the Municipal Common Service can be reckoned for pay fixation. ``` ``` 2. The Tribunal ordered that the party respondents are entitled for pay protection under Rule 28A Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) and, therefore, the Government is bound to pass necessary orders and, release the pay difference within a period of three months. Ext.P6 is the said order. This order is questioned by the State Government in this original petition. ``` ``` 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Municipal Common Service and Government Service do not fall under the same service and, therefore, the applicants before KAT are not entitled to fixation of pay. ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:4:- ``` 4. In fact, a similar question was considered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT).No.219/2022 and, upheld similar order passed by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that in Santosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats [2013 (2) KLT 548], ``` ``` this Court held that the employees in Panchayat/Municipal Common Service are Government servants. Going by Rule 28A of Part I KSR, Government servant is entitled to have pay protection. ``` ``` 5. The Government passed an order as per ``` ``` G.O.(MS).No.104/2023(121)/Fin, dated 3/7/2023 as follows: ``` ``` “Read:- G.O.(P).No.07/2016/Fin dated:20.101.2016. ``` ## **`ORDER`** ``` As per Government order read above, orders were issued revising pay and allowances of State Government Employees and Teachers with effect from 01/07/2014. As per Note below Rule 6 in the 'Rules for fixation of pay in the Revised Scales of Pay' narrated in Annexure II of the G.O, it was specified that prior regular service in Municipal Common Service will be reckoned for service weightage for fixation of pay in Government Service. But nothing was mentioned therein regarding reckoning of prior service in Government for computing service weightage for pay fixation in Municipal Common Service. Government have received representations for reckoning the prior regular service in Government for service weightage in Municipal Common Service in 2014 Pay Revision. ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:5:- ``` 2. Government have examined the matter in detail, and are pleased to order that the prior full time regular service in Government, including broken periods of service qualifying for normal increments, will be reckoned for service weightage for fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay in Municipal Common Service in 2014 Pay Revision. ``` ``` 3. This Order will take effect from 01/07/2014.” ``` ``` In the light of the above order and in the light of the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT).No.219/2022, no interference is warranted in this matter. The original petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ``` ## **`A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE`** ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE ``` ``` ms ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` -:6:- ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 321/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-1036/ 2011 DATED 22.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1-405/2013 DATED 05.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PAY DATED 27.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, TIRUR. Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1-8591/2016/STEP. DATED 18.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. Annexure A5TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING PAY OF THE 1 ST APPLICANT DATED 27.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE SUB JUDGE, TIRUR. Annexure A6TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.E7- 2334/16(8)(2) DATED 15.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Annexure A7TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.82/ADMN.A4/ 2012/FIN. DATED 10.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT Annexure A8TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A4.8/2014 18.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. Annexure A9TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN RESPECT OF THE 2 ND APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.A3-10/2016 DATED 15.02.2016. Annexure A10TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E7-2334/16(8) DATED 16.05.2018 Annexure A11TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.475/90/FIN. DATED 25.09.1990. Annexure A12TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 05.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1 ST APPLICANT. Annexure A13TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2 ND APPLICANT Annexure A14TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1 ST APPLICANT ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:7:- ``` Annexure A15TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2 ND APPLICANT Annexure A16TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE KAT DATED 09.11.2018 IN O.A (EKM) NO.2090/2018 Annexure A17TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.847/2019/ LSGD DATED 12.04.2019 Annexure A18TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 22.05.2013 IN O.P.(KAT) NO.4373/2012 Annexure A19TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 15.02.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.24693/2014 Annexure R3(a)TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS.) NO. 211/2006/LSGD DATED 12.09.2006. Annexure R3(b)TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.LFTRC 2-269/2008 DATED 28.07.2008 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT. Annexure A20TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2016 OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.2273/2013 Annexure A21TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2019 OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO. 1006/2017 Annexure A22TRUE COPY OF 2019 (3) KHC 524 (DB) ExhibitP1A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE O.A. (EKM) NO. 1205 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER/3 RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.05.2020 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 27- 01-2021 FILED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER/1 ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20.11.2021FILED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT/5 TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1&2/APPLICANTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.02.2022 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1205/2019 ``` ``` O.P.(KAT) No.321/2022 ``` ## -:8:- ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit R1(a)TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN OP(KAT) NO. 219/2022 ```