Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.BABU, S.L.R.WORKER, MINOR versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.BABU, S.L.R.WORKER, MINOR v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 26796 of 2003(M) [2007] RD-KL 2320 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26796 of 2003(M)

1. V.BABU, S.L.R.WORKER, MINOR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR

6. K.V.PETER, HEAD CLERK, O/O ASSISTANT

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.26796 of 2003 Dated 31st January, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers :-

(i) "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P8 order to the extent it denies pay scale of Rs.750-1,025 and fixation of pay, increments with effect from 9.10.1991 onwards in terms of Ext.P5 judgment; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.750-1025 with effect from 9.10.1991 by granting increment, fixation of pay as evidenced in Exts.P9 and P10 as has been given to other employees; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary due to the petitioner from 9.10.1991 to July 2003." In Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.2.2003 in O.P.No.12174/01, this Court found that the petitioner is eligible to draw salary in the scale of pay of Rs.750-1,025/- shortly after 22.9.1993, the date of revision of pay scale. The stand taken in the impugned Ext.P8 order by the Assistant Executive Engineer is that clarification from the Chief Engineer was not obtained and hence only a tentative fixation. It is seen from Exts.P9 and P10 that persons similarly situated have been given proper fixation with effect from the WP NO.26796/03 2 very eligible dates, without limiting it to July, 2003 as was done in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to extend a similar treatment to the petitioner, as extended to the SLR workers covered by Exts.P9 and P10. Ext.P8, to the extent required for the implementation of the above direction, would stand quashed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SD/-

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 31st January, 2007.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.