Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY versus B.C. ABDUL HAYATH, PEON

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY v. B.C. ABDUL HAYATH, PEON - WP(C) No. 27137 of 2005(S) [2007] RD-KL 5722 (19 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27137 of 2005(S)

1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY
... Petitioner

2. THE SECRETARY TO ADMINISTRATOR

3. THE PRINCIPAL PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER,

4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE

Vs

1. B.C. ABDUL HAYATH, PEON,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN

For Respondent :SRI.P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, CGC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :19/03/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C).NO.27137 OF 2005 (S)

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

First respondent joined the service as casual labourer in the department of Agriculture on daily wages on 1.6.1979 and he was granted temporary status with effect from 1.9.1993 by order dated 9.10.1996. On 20.2.2001, he was offered temporary Group D post of Peon in the scale of pay of Rs.2550 - 55 - 2660 - 3200 along with other allowances and he was appointed on regular basis in Group D by order dated 17.3.2001 in the scale of pay of Rs.2,840/-, protecting the pay he was receiving at that time. When action was taken to revise the payment to Rs.2,550/- contending that he will get only the minimum of the pay scale when his services were regularised, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Tribunal after analysing various cases held that the respondent had very long service and his protection of pay was correctly done at the W.P.(C).27137/2005 2 time when he was granted regular employment. When he was absorbed in Group D post as Peon there is nothing wrong in protecting the pay that he was drawing. We see no ground to interfere in the order of the Tribunal as there is no patent illegality and perverse findings so as to attract Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

prp

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

O.P.NO. OF 2006 ()

J U D G M E N T

1th 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.