As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner who joined services as a 2nd Grade Assistant in Khadi Board in the year 1982, was promoted thereafter as a 1st Grade Assistant with effect from 1988. As per Ext.P1 Special Rules that governs promotions in the said organisation, the next promotion post of the petitioner is the post of Junior Superintendent which carries the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9075. Going by Ext.P3 circular, issued in connection with the implementation of the 1997 Pay Revision Committee report, the petitioner was entitled to get a time bound higher grade, equivalent to that of the next promotion post in the direct line of promotion. The next promotion post was that of Junior Superintendent, carrying the pay scale aforementioned. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext.P4 representation before the respondents seeking the grant of the higher grade as applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent with effect from 10.05.1998, which was the date of exercise of the option for the grant of higher Grade. The said representation came to be rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 19.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred O.P 39964 of 2002 which was disposed by Ext.P9 judgment dated 19.02.2003 setting aside Ext.P7 order and directing the respondents to consider the matter afresh. The respondents, therefore, considered the matter once again and by Ext.P10 order dated 14.10.2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner yet again. On a petition filed by the petitioner to reconsider the said decision, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P11 order dated 03.02.2006 acceded to the request of the petitioner and sanctioned the 2nd time bound higher grade to the petitioner in the pay scale applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent. The 3rd respondent, however, granted the benefit only notionally with effect from 10.05.1998 and sanctioned the monetary benefits only with effect from 19.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext.P12 representation seeking the extension of the monetary benefit also with effect from 10.05.1998. By Exts.P13 and P14 representations, he also requested the 3rd respondent to sanction the 3rd time bound higher grade to him with effect from 29.05.2005. No action was, however, forthcoming from the respondents on the said representations. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a notice from the respondents seeking recovery of amounts allegedly erroneously sanctioned to him pursuant to Ext.P11 order of the 3rd respondent. Although the petitioner preferred a reply to the same, by a Board order dated 25.05.2012, the 3rd respondent cancelled Ext.P11 order and directed the recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to the said order. The said Board order dated 25.05.2012, is impugned in W.P.(C).No.15201 of 2012.
3. I have heard Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Sunitha Vinod, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that this is a case where the respondents have sought to deny the petitioner the benefit of the 2nd time bound higher grade pursuant to Ext.P3 Circular dated 25.11.1998, on the ground that there was an earlier Government Order of 1980, which clarified that even if there is no post of Head Clerk between the post of U.D.Clerks and Junior Superintendent under the Khadi Board, while giving the benefit of time bound higher grade to employees in the category of U.D. Clerks, they will be given higher grade only in the scale applicable to the post of Head Clerks. This stand of the respondent was specifically considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, in a similar matter concerning an employee of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. By the judgment dated 16.06.2014 in W.A.No.593 of 2013, it was held as follows:-
“3. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is mainly relying on Ext.R2
(b) Government order dated 19.12.1980, which according to him, clarified that even if the post of Head Clerk is not available between the post of Upper Division Clerks and Junior Superintendents, while giving the benefit of time bound higher grade to the employees in the category of Upper Division Clerks, they will be given higher grade only the scale as applicable to the post of Head clerks. The learned Government Pleader contended that this Government order still remains in force and that therefore the clarification issued by the Government as per Ext.P4 is consistent with Ext.R2(b) and that hence the claim of the respondents for time bound higher grade in the scale of pay to the post of Junior Superintendent is untenable.
4. However, a reading of Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 19.12.1980 shows that this was issued in the particular context of the claim for time bound higher grade that was implemented by the Government with effect from 01.07.1979 to all non-gazetted officers on completion of 13 years of service in the entry grade. Neither in the subsequent pay revision order issued by the Government on 16.09.1985 nor in the pay revision order dated 25.11.1998 is there any reference or reliance on Ext.R2(b) and on the other hand, the indication that we get from these Government orders is that these were issued in revision of the previous government orders.
5. Further, if the provisions of the pay revision order dated 25.11.1998 relied on by the respondents are referred to, it can be seen that in cases where there is a promotion post in the direct line of promotion and the time bound higher grade provided is less than the scale of pay prescribed for the promotion post, the Government employees who are eligible for the time bound higher grade are entitled to scale of pay as applicable to the promotion post, provided they are qualified for the higher post. In such circumstances and in the absence of anything to show that Ext.R2(b) still governs the fixation under the Government order dated 25.11.1998, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge upholding the claim of the respondents. The writ appeal fails and therefore stands dismissed.”
5. It is apparent from the above judgment that it covers the facts of the instant case as well to the extent the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the 2nd time bound higher grade . Accordingly, following the judgment referred to above, I allow both the writ petitions by declaring that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of the 2nd time bound higher grade in the pay scale applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent with effect from 10.05.1998. Resultantly, Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.21969 of 2007 is quashed, to the extent it denies the petitioner the monetary benefits in connection with the sanctioning of the 2nd time bound higher grade with effect from 10.05.1998. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits pursuant to the extension of 2nd time bound higher grade with effect from 10.05.1998. Exts.P3 and P4 orders in W.P.(C).No.15201 of 2012 are also quashed to the extent it contemplates a cancellation of Ext.P11 order and a recovery from the petitioner of all amounts paid to him pursuant to Ext.P11 order. The 3rd respondent is also directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for the grant of the 3rd time bound higher grade with effect from 29.05.2005, on the basis of the law declared by this Court with regard to the manner of interpretation of the circular issued by the Government giving effect to the recommendations of the 1997 Pay Revision Committee report, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With these directions, the writ petitions are allowed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/